Roadless

I share your concern for protecting the environment and the need to balance environmental values with economic interests in wilderness areas of the national forests. In some respects, conflict over whether forest wilderness areas should be used as sustainable economic resources or left as wilderness is inherent in the congressional mandate to manage forests for multiple uses, including wildlife, recreation and timber. I believe we must have public access to national forest lands, and these land use issues should be resolved with local community input in local forest plans.

In my district, I am concerned that the USFS roadless area rule and road management policies will adversely impact constituents and communities which depend on the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests for their economic vitality and recreational opportunities.

Less than 1% of the land in the Ottawa National Forest, about 4,000 acres, and approximately 1%, or 8,000 acres of the land in the Hiawatha National Forest is currently within an "Inventoried Roadless Area". No new wilderness areas are recommended in these two forests. Local forest officials do not believe it is likely that the roadless area rule, in whatever form it is finally implemented, will greatly affect our part of Northern Michigan.

The roadless area and road management rules were published on January 12, 2001, but have not taken final effect, pending a review of the roadless area rule and road management policy by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of USFS. In addition, each national forest must complete a forest-level roads analysis by January 13, 2003.

Litigation has also slowed implementation of the 2001 roadless rule. A bill introduced in both the House and the Senate would codify the rule and bypass the court process, but has not yet reached the floor of the House for a vote.

I have actively participated in the debate surrounding these issues. I testified before a House subcommittee, spoke at public comment meetings in Michigan, wrote to the chief of the Forest Service, met with White House officials, prepared related amendments to the Interior Appropriations bill, and debated these policies on the House floor.

In the meantime, USFS has greatly restricted road building and reconstruction activity in roadless areas, pending the Bush administration=s review of the policy. On December 14, 2001, a USFS directive made some needed, common sense changes to the restrictions which are in place until a final rule is implemented.


The directive removes the blanket requirement for a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) whenever any road management is proposed in any already inventoried roadless area, no matter how slight. Instead, an EIS is required only when an activity would substantially alter an inventoried roadless area. The directive also clarifies that only defined, inventoried roadless areas are restricted. It also acknowledges my view that some decisions relating to the individual forests are best made "closer to the ground" by giving clear authority to local forest officials regarding the individual forest-level roads analyses that are being done.

I believe that these provisions are steps in the right direction, because they give some flexibility to local forest officials, who have the best knowledge of local forest conditions and needs. They also allow for more local input based on local circumstances.

I realize that there is more than one viewpoint on the roadless area rule, particularly in how it applies to areas other than the Upper Peninsula and Michigan's 1st Congressional District. My activities and any possible legislative votes on the roadless and road management policies will always consider first the impact these policies may have on our district and the people of Northern Michigan.