Western Slope residents questioning proposed roadless rule for Colorado

 

By Lisa Huynh
Daily Press Writer
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:50 PM MDT

MONTROSE — Western Slope citizens, including at least one Montrose resident, came together this week to call for the federal government to “close loopholes” in proposed protections for Colorado’s roadless areas.

The state is in the midst of a rulemaking process that would put in place state-specific regulations for roadless areas.

But the federal government’s proposed rule could threaten more than 80,000 acres in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre & Gunnison, White River and Routt National Forests, citizen groups say.

Advertisement
In an organized effort to highlight concerns about the proposed rule, the groups attended open houses this week as part of the process.

About 75 to 80 citizens attended Tuesday’s open house in Grand Junction, according to Paonia resident Pete Kolbenschlag, Colorado representative for Pew Environment Group. Another open house was held Wednesday in Glenwood Springs and one is scheduled for tonight (5 to 8:30 p.m.) at the community center in Steamboat Springs.

Kolbenschlag said there are a number of concerns about the proposed Colorado rule.

About 100 oil and gas leases, pushed through since the 2001 Roadless (Area Conservation) Rule, would open the areas to road building and surface development, said Kolbenschlag.

“If the Colorado rule goes forward it would basically allow new road building on most of those 100 leases, not all but most,” he said. “So it would allow for new road building in backcountry forest. That’s one of the big loopholes.”

Other concerns involve language that has been weakened significantly from both the 2001 rule and what Gov. Bill Ritter put forward in his petition, Kolbenschlag said. In 2007, Ritter formally asked the federal government to protect Colorado’s 4.1 million acres of forested roadless areas.

“Overall, the main concern is that if this goes forward, Colorado’s roadless rule areas will have less protection than roadless areas on national forests in any other state,” Kolbenschlag  said. “We’ll have a lower standard for our back country forest than every other area in the country and that’s unacceptable.”

Montrose resident Stephen Slade, 65, who has lived in Colorado for eight years, is an avid hiker who spends his time in areas such as the San Juan Mountains and Dominguez Canyon.

“To reduce protection here of all places — one of the most beautiful places in the country —doesn’t seem like a reasonable way to proceed with this (roadless rule),” Slade said. “It does, quite frankly, seem like an end run around the rules. They’re going to try to get this done in the short term because they know that the people, the governor and all of the interested parties in the state have wanted to preserve the forests in Colorado.”

The format of the government-hosted meetings, which Kolbenschlag said is not conducive to public dialogue and discussion, has also prompted concern.

“Procedurally, they’ve changed the way they went around to create the rules in 2001 with lots of meetings, with lots of information, with lots of people participating,” said Slade. “They’ve (government officials) reduced that to a mere fraction.”

 
 

¤ Please read our Disclaimer and Privacy Policy before participating in our online community.

Comments


Post a comment


READER COMMENTS 

• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.

• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point. 

• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!

(optional)