500 Scientists Question President Obama’s Colorado Forest Plan

Ad calls on Obama to keep promise on national roadless rule

WASHINGTON - A week after the Obama administration issued a statement in support of a State of Colorado
proposal to open areas within 4.4 million acres of roadless national forest to new coal mining and oil and gas
development, more than 500 scientists from across the country are calling on the Obama administration to stand
behind the national roadless rule, which would preclude this activity. The scientists’ message is referenced in
conservation groups’ Washington Post and Politico ads (PDF) running this week that call on the administration
not to “exempt Colorado from roadless area safeguards.”

Dr. Stuart Pimm, Chair of Duke University’s Department of Conservation, and Dr. Barry Noon, Professor of
Wildlife Ecology at Colorado State University, were among 520 scientists who sent a letter (PDF) to the
president, released to the public today. It details the “scientific importance of this landmark environmental
policy and our concern about attempts to undermine its protections” in Colorado. A second letter (PDF) from 33
prominent Colorado scientists also raises concerns with the state’s proposal. 

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s April 6 proposal includes two controversial coal mine expansions by the
privately held Oxbow Group and Arch Coal, both of which received an initial go-ahead from U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack last month, an action that raised concerns from more than 100 conservation and
recreation groups (PDF). The Ritter proposal also would allow the development of 85 new oil and gas leases
(PDF), pipelines, roads and well pads as well as construction of so-called  “long-term temporary” roads that
could last for more than 30 years and be built with minimal public review.

Initial analysis shows the state’s proposal falls far short of the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Area
Conservation Rule, which was issued to protect 58.6 million acres of undeveloped national forests.  The Obama
administration endorsed the popular policy and is currently defending it in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,
where it is being challenged by the Colorado Mining Association, among others. The administration initially
praised the Ritter proposal, which would subject hundreds of thousands of acres of Colorado’s roadless areas to
new road construction, logging and other development. This acreage has been protected from these activities
under the 2001 Rule.

“Just a few weeks ago, the Obama administration defended the 2001 roadless rule in court,” said Jane
Danowitz, director of the Pew Environment Group’s U.S. public lands program. “Now it appears the White
House may be stepping back and allowing a plan with significantly lower protection than the 2001 roadless rule,
with new allowances for power lines, mining, and oil and gas drilling in our national forests. We urge the
administration to honor its commitment to science-based policy, and to keep its promise to uphold the roadless
rule.”  

“With enough roads to circle the globe 15 times, our national forests are already a maze, and roadless areas are
our last hope for protecting forests and watersheds that cleanse the air we breathe, purify the water we drink,
and support the wildlife we enjoy in our national forests,” said Dominick DellaSala, president and chief scientist
of the National Center for Conservation Science & Policy, a signer of today’s ad. “More than 500 of the
nation’s scientists have called on the President to uphold the roadless conservation rule and reject the Colorado
petition, because the highest and best use of these lands is to protect them.”

“The effect of building roads through roadless areas extend beyond the road itself,” said Colorado State
University’s Barry Noon. “Roadless areas in Colorado are characterized by steep slopes and erosive soils, and
the unfortunate consequence is that road construction is a permanent transformation of the landscape.”
“Large blocks of forests protect watersheds and biodiversity, while their destruction massively contributes to
greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate disruption,” said Duke University’s Pimm. “It is essential that
we keep these forests intact and not sacrifice the ecosystem services they provide for the short-term profits of
special interests.”

The Colorado proposal has been opposed by national and state-based conservation and sportsmen’s groups, and
more than 200,000 people nationwide.