Roadless Rule enjoined.......yet AGAIN!!

[Fotoware58]

A Wyoming judge has again overruled the Clinton Era icon! He has decided for the third time that the Roadless Rule is illegal and repealed it, declaring a California judge's ruling against him to be invalid. This again will become a lightning rod for individual states, environmentalists and energy companies.

First, a little history about Roadless Areas. Years ago, there weren't any rules on roadbuilding and logging crews routinely built roads into big timber with very little restrictions, other than following Forest Service design specifications. Indeed, there wasn't anywhere that they couldn't build a road into, despite big environmental damages. Roads were very much desired in those days to not only reach the big timber but, to have better access to fight fires. The 70's brought in the idea of managing forests like corn, grown on rotations and clearcut by preference, without bothering to factor in other resources, features and wildlife. This concept peaked during the Reagan years and then rapidly declined when ecosystem management took hold. The areas not all roaded up became valuable to the "Ologists" and measures were taken to conserve those roadless areas and lands were given protections. Since most big timber in the lower 48 states had already been roaded, those remaining designated Roadless Areas were, generally, steep, rocky, crumbling and mostly devoid of big patches of big trees.

As Clinton came into office, these Roadless Areas were seen to have much more value than ever before, simply by their lack of roads. Indeed, they became cherished areas that were still, largely, untouched, and really did deserve to have more protections. The annual cuts were starting to drop because of sorely-needed protections of other forest resources. More areas and more protections were proposed but, not everyone agreed with the RARE II ideas to set aside more acres. The remaining small patches of timber were being looked at by the declining timber industry as ways to save their dwindling fortunes. As public interest went against the "timber barons", Clinton hatched an idea to create his "environmental legacy" as he was leaving office. He, apparently and hastily, threw together a plan to declare 58 million acres of designated Roadless Areas with greater protections. In some people's minds, these areas would be "de facto" Wilderness Areas, off-limits to loggers and mining operations. Intense environmentalist popularity in this declaration resulted in a very large and very sneaky program of "stuffing the ballot box" with "votes" by writing in public input. The battle was on with eco's claiming "3 million votes" for the public input portion of the proposed rules. However, in essence, many of those "votes" were nearly identical, bringing up the exact same issues, over and over. "Public input" is supposed to be a way to bring up as many issues of concern and not to be a popularity contest. Clinton whizzed through the process to ramrod this "legacy" through before he was to leave office. He did sign the proclamation in the last few minutes of his term and Clinton's Roadless Rule was enabled.

As GW Bush came into office, he made a priority of his early days to dismantle and eliminate the Roadless Rules which some felt were not only bad for our forests but also, illegal, according to NEPA rules. His Administration worked hard to put their own package together so that individual states could decide the fates of their own Roadless Areas. Suits and countersuits ensued and much money was spent by states on developing their own versions. A few states quickly decided that the Clinton rules were just fine for them. A high-profile case out of Wyoming came up and the judge threw the Clinton rules out, deciding that the NEPA rules and laws hadn't been followed to the letter and that Clinton could not, by Presidential Decree, create "de facto" Wilderness Areas. In a very pointed and angry decision statement, he declared the Clinton rules were invalid, forever.

Just recently, a similar California court judge threw out the Wyoming court judges decision, declaring that the Clinton rules had been re-instated everywhere, except in the state of Wyoming. The Wyoming judge just re-visited the case, decided there was no "comity" in his previous decision and wrote another statement re-affirming his elimination of the Clinton rules.

An excerpt:

"The Court first turns to the Federal Defendants’ claim that to issue an injunction that conflicted with that of the California District Court was in error. This argument has already been heard and adequately addressed by this Court in its previous order. … It ultimately found “that issues of comity are not present in the current case.” …

Next, the Court turns to the Federal Defendants’ contention that the Court committed a clear error when it enjoined enforcement of the 2001 Roadless Rule nationwide rather than simply limiting it to Wyoming. … The Rule was enacted and enforced on a nationwide basis. … If the Rule is illegal, as this Court has found it to be, then it is illegal nationwide, just as it was enforced nationwide. … When the USDA and the Forest Service failed to comply with NEPA in promulgating the 2001 Roadless Rule, it put our nation’s forests, not just Wyoming’s forests, at risk. … As the Court noted at oral argument, destructive beetles do not heed state boundaries, neither do the devastating nature of forest fires. …

The Court notes that it has twice decided that the 2001 Roadless Rule was promulgated in contravention of the nation’s environmental laws. The Court has been thorough and analyzed the administrative record numerous times, and found that the USDA and the Forest Service failed to perform their duties under NEPA and the Wilderness Act when they promulgated the Rule. …

Everyday that the Roadless Rule remains in effect is a day that our forests are at risk.

It is clear that the public interest lies in preserving our forests. The 2001 Roadless Rule, by violating the law, has failed to do this. Everyday that this Rule remains in effect, our forests are placed in a position of further peril. The Court, therefore, finds that WOC’s motion must be DENIED."

VERY pointed, indeed! ...

Now, personally, I think that Roadless protections are a good thing and I was happy that roads were prohibited. From a timber guy's point of view, those areas weren't in much danger from loggers. Any timber in the original designated Roadless Areas could stay for eternity, for all I cared. However, to designate more "Roadless Areas" that actually did have roads in them was rather disingenuous, and pandered to those of the eco-persuasion. From my environmentalist point of view, and with the energy crisis is full bore, those Roadless Areas are again put under pressure to build roads in. Many of those roads would be built in extremely bad terrain, and those new energy installations could require pipelines and power lines. I think we need a common sense, NEPA-qualified, road-excluded protection of these areas. Timber should still be allowed to be cut, but only under extremely narrow restrictions, with absolutely no new permanent roads constructed within them. I don't believe that states can be trusted to protect Roadless Areas from roads.

I'm sure I've left out some historical stuff but, I hope this passage might enlighten some people about this whole issue, which will surely be re-re-re-visited. Please add your own thoughts on this important development.

Thanks for reading this!

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Isn't Wyoming Cheney country?

[Fotoware58]

2. Interesting

Only one snide remark from an issue that had 3 million official comments during the Clinton Administration??

On a related note, the Forest Service has placed a 1 year moratorium on all potential Roadless Area projects that might be left over from the Bush Administration. Since this still seems to be a very fluid issue, that seems to be the right course. While some Roadless Areas surely do have bark beetle and wildfire danger, I don't see what roadbuilding has to do with it. I guess that maybe those pieces of land that Clinton added as "Roadless Areas" do actually have trees worth saving, eh? I'm also wondering how people would feel if big parts of the Clinton "Roadless Areas" were to die off (which surely has already happened in the Rockies) and then be completely consumed by wildfire(s), to the barren, blackened and sterile ground.

One thing is apparent, though. The idea that forests distant from towns can die and burn with no effects on people has been thoroughly dismissed and debunked. In fact, people in urban Los Angeles are already impacted by the dead, flammable forests of the Rockies. And will be for decades.