Just spent two days listening to the deliberations of Rack-Nack (Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee), which is advising the Forest Service and Agriculture Department on how to respond to petitions from governors suggesting how to manage national forests in their states.

The committee consists of 13 people from quite a diversity of interests:

There's Beef (Jeff Eisenberg of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association), Ski (Geraldine Link of the National Ski Areas Association), Timber (Jim Riley of the Intermountain Forest Association), Coal (Greg Schaefer of the National Coal Association), Snowmobile (Adena Cook of the Blue Ribbon Coalition), Wilderness West (Dale Harris of the Montana Wilderness Association), Wilderness East (Ray Vaughan of Wildlaw in Alabama), The Expert (Chris Wood of Trout Unlimited and an advisor to Chief Forester Mike Dombeck during preparation and review of the 2001 Roadless Rule), The Biologist (Todd Schulke of the Center for Biological Diversity in New Mexico), Trout (Paul Hansen of the Izaak Walton League), State (Darin Bird from Utah), The Commissioner (Robert Cope from Lemhi County, Idaho), and Labor (Denny Scott from the Carpenters Union in California).

For this meeting the committee had its first three petitions to consider: from Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, all of which asked for complete protection of their roadless areas. All asked that the provisions of the 2001 rule be reinstated for their forests.

The points of contention that came up again and again were these:

References to the 2001 rule. Ski demanded, insisted, ordered that all references to the 2001 rule be expunged since it is not in force and is five years old. Others pointed out that the 2001 rule represents a vast amount of work and information and is what the 2005 rule is based on, having no environmental documentation of its own.

Public Involvement. The 2005 rule does not actually require public involvement but simply a report on any steps the states have taken to assess public attitudes to the rule, as The Expert had to remind the committee many times. The preamble, however, as Ski pointed out dozens of times, assumes that the states will take the public's temperature. Snowmobile said repeatedly that NEPA is not a popularity contest; she is clearly sick of hearing about the millions of comments that supported the 2001 rule and opposed the 2005 rule.

The second sticking point was about whether all interest groups had been consulted. Here it became clear that the pro-roadless side was far better organized in all three states than the commercial interests. Timber, Beef, Ski, and Snowmobile all argued that the states should have made a greater effort to reach out to their industries (or, in the case of Snowmobile, to the motorized-recreation crowd). This is a theme that will return.

Moratorium. The petitions ask for a moratorium on activities in roadless areas until the petition process runs its course. Again, the commodity faction of the RACNAC opposes this.

Nationalism. This is a bit abstract but may be important. RACNAC is held up as proof that the petition process is a national exercise-the committee is charged with bringing a national perspective to the proceedings. Yet Snowmobile and others said repeatedly that each petition should be taken on its own, the petitions shouldn't be compared with one another, and the committee's job was to help the states achieve what they want.

Economic Impact on Communities and Individuals. This is Beef's biggest concern, and he will urge that this be explored and considered in all cases.
Loss of Forest Land and Agricultural Land to Sprawl and Development. The Expert kept asking for data like these, to demonstrate the growing value of preserving what undeveloped lands remain.

Growing Demand for Developed Recreation. Ski responded that demand for ski areas and such is growing as well and should be measured.
Noninventoried Areas. Wilderness East said that the governor of Alabama will petition to have one 5,000 acre area added to the list of protected roadless areas. It was left out of the inventory and should have been included. This could cause a ruckus.

In the end, all three petitions were given provisional thumbs up. Letters will go to the Secretary of Agriculture with suggestions on parts that should be strengthened as the process moves forward. The department will have 90 days to decide whether to accept the committee's recommendations. All this is reported here.

Many other states are preparing petitions. The deadline for submitting them is November 13th. Meanwhile, lawsuits by four states (California, Oregon, New Mexico, and Washington) and 20 conservation groups (represented by Earthjustice) could derail the whole process.

The beat goes on.

Tom Turner, Senior Editor
yourturn@earthjustice.org