Clinton “Roadless Rule” Overturned Again

U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer of Wyoming has issued a permanent injunction against former president Bill Clinton’s decree to place 58.5 million acres of national forests off limits. Judge Brimmer said the Clinton roadless rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act. “The Forest Service, in an attempt to bolster an outgoing President’s environmental legacy, rammed through an environmental agenda that itself violates the country’s well-established environmental law,” Brimmer wrote. Judge Brimmer issued a similar ruling in 2003, after Wyoming filed a lawsuit challenging the Clinton edict. The 2001 rule prohibits logging, mining, road building and any development in national forests in 38 states and Puerto Rico. In May 2005, the Bush administration changed the roadless rule to require governors to petition the federal government if they wanted notional forests in their states protected from use. Then, in 2006, San Francisco U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte reinstated the 2001 rule. In response, Wyoming again filed a complaint in federal court, leading to Brimmer’s latest decision. It’s not over. Environmentalists have promised to file an appeal in the U.S. 10th District Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Mike Anderson, an attorney for the Wilderness Society, said he believes the San Francisco ruling still stands. “It is not in any way overturned or compromised by Judge Brimmer’s decision in Wyoming,” Anderson said. What it does do is create two conflicting court decisions in different federal courts, different states, both issuing decisions with nationwide impact.” Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salburg said the injunction was appropriate “in light of the potential harm the roadless rule poses to our national forests due to beetle infestation and forest fires.” Salzburg continued; “we anticipate an appeal by either the United States or one or more of the interveners.”

Can we get that in English?

In the waning days of the Clinton presidency, the "roadless rule" was introduced to limit usage of the national forests in those areas declared to be "roadless". There was widespread belief that this was a first step toward declaring these areas as "wilderness". A wilderness designation excludes all machinery including bikes, hang gliders and of course 4x4s.

The rule got into a discussion of inventoried and non-inventoried roadless areas. An inventoried roadless area meant that they had an inventory of the roads in the area. What? An inventory of roads in a roadless area? Yep. No wonder folks ask for translations.

Another issue with the roadless rule was that it centralized designations so that the Ranger in the field didn't make a decision as to whether there was a road or what it was used for, Washington would do that. All local input was squelched, including public comment by the real owners of US Forest Service lands. The decision was made by Executive Order which helped to bypass the public input.

It was argued against by all the 4 wheel drive organizations (including United Four Wheel Drive Associations and the Mid Atlantic Four Wheel Drive Association).

From an access point of view, the consequences were obvious. There are also issues with the practice of good forestry as the roadless rule eliminated maintenance (such as thinning of underbrush) which has been cited as being a major contributor to the intensity and frequency of the forest fires in the years since its introduction. You may have noticed that USFS budgets have been severely strained in recent years as fire suppression is consuming all of their resources.

This has a spiral effect as the absence of budget dollars will contribute to a lack of maintenance which will contribute to road closures (under the guise of 'can't keep it open if we can't maintain') which will force those of us who use the forests onto fewer and fewer legally open areas. The effect of that will lead to complaints of overuse to the detriment of the forest and the environment (as well as helping to push the non-law abiding into creating illegal off trail paths). This will add to the collection of information to be used to keep the land-owning public off their own land.

I'll stop now but it should be a little easier to see why some can get seriously riled up at the mere mention of that particular President and the Roadless Rule.

thanks for the info.

Translation on the legal front:

One judge in San Francisco has ruled that the roadless rule is valid. Another judge in Wyoming has ruled that it is unlawful. The Wyoming judge has issued an order enjoining the enforcement of the roadless rule. The San Francisco judge cannot vacate that order. Thus, the govenment cannot enforce the roadless rule without being in contempt of court. However, the decision of the Wyoming judge may be appealed and could be reversed by a higher court.

k_enn