guest commentary By Harlin Savage and Tara Thomas Thursday, December 13, 2001 - Most Americans cherish their public lands, the spectacular, rugged landscapes that have shaped our nation and defined its character. During this time of crisis, people are turning to nature for solace and searching for ways to safeguard America's natural heritage, especially the wild places closest to their homes and dearest to their hearts. Yet even now, with the war on terrorism foremost on the public's mind, the Bush administration is engaged in a sweeping behind-the-scenes effort to roll back conservation laws and eliminate opportunities for citizens to participate meaningfully in decisions that will determine the fate of national forests and other public wildlands. One of the Bush administration's prime targets is roadless areas, the crown jewels of the national forest system. Last summer, the administration began the formal process of reversing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which would protect the last undeveloped tracts in national forests from most road building and commercial logging. As justification for gutting the rule, the administration claims that public input was lacking, even though the Forest Service received more than 2 million public comments - by far the most comments ever submitted on any federal rule - the vast majority of which favored protection of these forest lands. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is issuing arcane bureaucratic directives that would virtually eliminate citizen input. In a reversal of long-standing agency practice set during the administration of President Bush's father, the Forest Service has a proposed directive that would significantly change the way it implements the National Environmental Policy Act, the premier legal charter establishing the public's right to know. This law requires that federal agencies publicly disclose the impacts of projects and solicit public comment before undertaking them. Only when a project's impacts are likely to be non-existent - such as mowing the lawn at a ranger station - can agencies bypass these requirements. The Forest Service currently recognizes that some forest lands are so significant or sensitive that even small-scale projects must be subject to environmental analysis and public scrutiny. Critical forest resources in this category include: inventoried roadless areas, municipal watersheds, endangered and threatened species habitat, Native American religious and cultural sites, wilderness study areas and wetlands. The proposed directive would scrap all that and give local forest managers the power to approve projects that could damage or destroy these precious resources by simply sending a memo called a "categorical exclusion" to the file - no scientific analysis and virtually no public scrutiny. Projects that could be rubber-stamped in this way include large salvage logging projects, small-scale commercial logging, certain mining activities, and construction of roads, motorized trails and utility lines. Part of the problem with the proposed change is that it would leave citizens with no option other than going to court when they want to challenge a project that threatens roadless areas and other special forest lands. With most agency decisions, an internal agency appeals process may lead to compromise instead of litigation. But that option is generally not available when a categorical exclusion is used. If the Forest Service succeeds in shirking its public involvement responsibilities, citizens may have to rely even more on the Freedom of Information Act if they want to stop destruction of roadless areas or damage to a municipal watershed. Yet a recently issued Justice Department memo encourages all federal agencies to reject information requests from citizens when there is even the slightest legal basis for doing so. The memo is clearly intended to have a chilling effect on agency responses to public information requests, which are sometimes the only way for citizens to find out what the Forest Service or other agencies are doing. Public wildlands are the heart and soul of the West. They are national treasures revered and enjoyed by Americans from all walks of life. Colorado's economy and quality of life are inextricably linked to these lands. Now more than ever, the federal government must engage the public openly and honestly in the work of saving these lands for future generations. Harlin Savage of Boulder is director of the Colorado Forest Project, American Lands Alliance. Tara Thomas of of Paonia is executive director of the Western Slope Environmental Resource Council. Guest commentary submissions of 650 words may be sent to The Post editorial page. --------------------------------------------------------- (( Letters to the editor regarding above: letters@denverpost.com ( Letters to the editor - to be considered, letters must include full name, home town and daytime phone number ) Phone: (303) 820-1331 - Fax: (303) 820-1502 )) PUBLIC LANDS POLICY All the key words Re: "Let the public speak for public lands," Dec. 13 guest commentary. Harlin Savage and Tara Thomas used all the key words right out of the anti-access, anti-recreation, elitist, green advocacy groups (GAGs) playbook: Crown Jewels, sensitive, precious resources, special forest lands, national treasures, future generations. They just about got them all. Where were they when the Clinton, Gore, Babbitt, Dombeck gang was racing around the country, near the end of their term, creating national monuments without allowing a word of public input? Many recreational opportunities were lost to "future generations" in these "national treasures" by their infamous actions. This ignoring the public, with its subsequent loss of public access and recreational opportunities, sure made the GAGs happy at that time. ROBERT E. LICK Cheyenne Different opinions What planet are Harlin Savage and Tara Thomas from? This crisis has us turning to "nature for solace" and "searching for ways to safeguard wild places closest to our homes"? Silly me, I thought maybe we were safeguarding places where large numbers of people gathered. But, at least we understand their priorities. These people just can't believe that other people have opinions that differ from theirs. By the way, 2 million letters from Sierra Club activists don't constitute the majority's opinion. I'm all for saving national treasures, but demanding that these parks remain roadless is just another way to keep them for the "elite's" use only. The average American has neither the time nor the experience to hike the required days or weeks into roadless rugged national parks. But that's what these people want - to keep the working-class average Joe and his family off public lands. Look in the mirror, ladies, the public sees you for what you are - the selfish and the elite. RITA MITRANI Littleton Ask those who know I work for the Forest Service in Idaho and deal daily with the constant upheaval of policies and laws that are re-examined and changed with each presidential administration. In the midst of all this, we at the field level (usually ranger stations) continue our work with the same dedication and love for the outdoors that led us to seek jobs with the Forest Service. Our frustration grows as we sit in the office, spending limited tax dollars on paperwork and litigation brought on by groups opposed to almost everything we do, rather than spending those dollars on the ground where it really counts. The authors stated, "With most agency decisions, an internal appeals process may lead to compromise instead of litigation." The appellants, almost always regional environmental groups, are rarely willing to really talk with us or try to work out a compromise. I encourage individuals concerned about Forest Service activities or policies to go to their nearest Forest Service office and talk with the people who work there. They will get the best information from them. JUDY YORK Sandpoint, Idaho |