Talks to protect roadless areas in forests are a matter of trust

Tuesday, Dec. 7, 1999 | 11:09 a.m.

The success or failure of public discussions about a federal proposal to protect roadless areas in the nation's forests may hang by a pretty thin thread in Nevada.

"It's a matter of whether they trust us or not," Rick Connell, a U.S. Forest Service analyst from Sparks, said following a forum in Las Vegas Monday night.

Nevadans are not known for their overriding trust of the agency that manages the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest -- an expanse that covers most of the state's midsection, includes Mount Charleston and makes up the largest national forest outside Alaska.

The forest's supervisor resigned last month after lambasting the local attitude toward forest workers, and a five-member fact-finding group arrived in Nevada on Monday to investigate complaints that forest employees are mistreated in their communities.

Even in Las Vegas' West Sahara Library -- far from the rural center of the debate -- the level of mistrust was almost tangible during the discussion of President Clinton's Oct. 13 call for plans to manage roadless areas in the national forest system.

The forest service already imposed a temporary moratorium on building new roads in roadless areas in January 1998. Agency officials say they are facing an $8.4 billion maintenance backlog on the 380,000 miles of roads the agency maintains.

Many of the estimated 70 in attendance Monday saw the building moratorium and pending plan as part of a larger, hidden agenda to gradually expand wilderness areas and restrict all but the most physically able from public back country.

"This is part of the Democratic environmental agenda. Once they get this done, they're not going to keep it in a file drawer. They're going to take the next step. Their agenda is to close things down," an off-road enthusiast shouted from one side of the room.

Monday's forum was the first of four that will be conducted in Nevada this month.

It's part of a process that began Oct. 19 with forest service's announcement that it would examine the existing road system and ask people what issues should be considered in making national guidelines for roadless areas.

By spring they hope to have a draft proposal that also will go up for public discussion. The final plan should be finished by fall, forest service officials said.

But the comment period for finding out what issues people want addressed ends Dec. 20, and only written comments are being accepted. That left many who attended the Monday meeting feeling as though there wasn't enough time to get their thoughts on paper.

No comments were logged or taken on the record, leaving some more distrustful of the forest service's intentions. And Nye County Commission Chairman Dick Carver doesn't need another reason for that.

The man credited with helping resurrect the "Sagebrush Rebellion" in a 1993 controversy over county ownership of roads on forest service land drove 270 miles to attend the meeting.

He said the notification he received from the forest service came too late for Nye commissioners to reach a consensus.

"We can't get it on the agenda in time," Carver said just before the meeting started. "We're going to fight this thing. Of those areas suitable for roadless designation, the biggest majority are in Nye County. It'll just paralyze the county. It'll be all locked up."

Several people said the forest service should extend the comment period by 60 or 120 days. Many didn't even know the process was taking place until the past few days.

"The only way you're going to stop this is to call your state and federal officials and demand this be put on hold so your comments can be heard," said Tom Flores, a Northern Paiute and activist who has helped block construction of a suspension bridge near the Hoover Dam.

"Because of the time frame, these little comment sheets are going to go in the trash. This is just federal bulls---," Flores said, eliciting murmurs of support.

Even Las Vegas District Ranger Tom Kuekes and Connell seemed frustrated by the timeline.

"It wasn't my choice. I expressed that to them," Connell told the group.

Kuekes suggested people include extension requests in their written comments.

"I think it's always helpful for the agency to ensure the public has had a full chance to participate. And (an extension) sounds like it would be a legitimate request," Kuekes said after the meeting.

The proposed guidelines are to address construction of new roads in currently roadless areas and are not designed to close roadless areas to public access or make them wilderness areas, forest service officials said.

Still some saw the guidelines as a formality to closure of the areas. And much of the discussion deteriorated into bickering among those who advocate motorized back country travel and those who don't. One four-wheel-drive enthusiast got into a barbed exchange with a couple of hikers two rows behind him.

More than once those asking for more areas without roads were shouted down by those who saw their favorite leisure activity being phased out.

Kuekes, acting without benefit of a striped shirt or whistle, did his best to control the outbursts.

"We're not going to be solving problems in this room in this way," he said. "We have a wide range of opinions in this room, and all viewpoints need to be considered."

The next public forum is Wednesday evening in Reno, followed by one Thursday in Hadley and the last on Dec. 16 in Elko.