DENVER—Support
for protecting Colorado’s backcountry continues to grow, with concerns
for wildlife topping the list, according to the latest summary of
public comments submitted to the state’s Roadless Areas Review Task
Force.
In
just two months, the number of written comments has nearly doubled,
with the vast majority personal statements. In fact, of the 781 written
comments that make a case for or against continued protection of
Colorado’s roadless National Forest land, 86% call for protecting these
special backcountry places.
“This
most recent look at our National Forest Roadless Areas echoes the many
previous public processes, in that a large majority of Coloradans
unequivocally want to protect our National Forests,” said Vera Smith
with the Colorado Mountain Club. She added, “Wildlife habitat and
recreation opportunities are simply too important for Colorado to
lose.”
According
to the new summary of public comments, the top reasons cited for
continuing roadless area protection include preservation of wildlife
habitat (230) and preservation of natural landscapes (219). In fact,
170 comments specifically argued that building more roads into the
backcountry would harm the state’s unique wildlife populations by, for
example, disrupting migration activity and corridors, fragmenting
habitat, introducing noxious weeds, and eventually forcing big game off
public lands.
Smith’s
is one of several recreation, wildlife, and conservation groups that
make up Colorado’s Forest Legacy, an ad hoc coalition that commissioned
the Mondo Business Group, Ltd. to complete an independent survey of
comments sent to the Roadless Areas Review Task Force.
Colorado’s Forest Legacy is also planning to hand-deliver another 15,000 public comments to the
Task Force at its next deliberative meeting, Friday, April 14th.
Colorado’s Forest Legacy is a broad coalition of wildlife enthusiasts,
recreation enthusiasts, and conservations who have come together to
protect Colorado’s quality of life by preserving roadless areas in our
state’s National Forests. Some of the groups include Environment
Colorado, Colorado Mountain Club, Sierra Club, and the National
Wildlife Federation.
“Time
and time again, Coloradans have voiced overwhelming support for
protecting Colorado’s last wild forests,” said Matt Garrington, Field
Organizer for Environment Colorado. “We hope the tasks force listens
well to the voices of Colorado and protects our National Forests.”
The
Task Force, which was created by the Governor and state legislature, is
reviewing public opinion of Colorado’s National Forest roadless areas
in an effort to make recommendations about the future management of
these lands. Up until May of last year, these forests were protected
under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Now, the fates of some of
Colorado’s most popular backcountry destinations and undeveloped
wildlife habitat are up in the air.
While
the Task Force is required to consider public comment according to
state law, what weight they’ll give local citizen input is still
uncertain. With five public hearings concluded and at least four more
to go, the Task Force is just now beginning to develop a
decision-making process.
Adriana
Raudzens with the Sierra Club in Colorado hopes that the Task Force’s
decision will be an easy one. “If you consider the public comment to
date, there is unprecedented support for keeping roadless lands as they
are. Opening these forests to road building, commercial logging, and
oil and gas drilling would be just about the most unpopular thing the
Task Force could do.”
The
comment summary also recorded several other values attributed by many
to the state’s spectacular out-of-doors. In total, 201 comments
described roadless areas as enhancing quality of life. One hundred
seventy-five of the written comments highlighted the recreation
opportunities created through the conservation of backcountry
landscapes; and 126 written comments focused on the harmful impacts of
road building on Colorado’s scarce water resources.
In
contrast, several topics of interest to the Task Force received little
debate by the public. Only twelve comments mentioned grazing in
roadless areas, and all supported keeping these areas protected.
Similarly, only twenty-two comments mentioned wildfire, with 2/3
arguing that adequate roads exist for fuels treatment.
