View Full Version : Roadless Rule update

Seldom Seen
09-21-2006, 02:03 AM
Well it all *might* be moot, all the details are not in and I just got the PDF of the courts decision. As it looks now the 9th district court has struck down the state petition process stating the USFS failed to do an EA prior to instating the petition process. I'm not 100% sure if the ruling applies to all states or just the ones named as plaintiffs but, it looks like it's back to the drawing board.


For all these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment are granted and Defendants’ motion is denied. The State Petitions Rule is set aside and the Roadless Rule, including the Tongass Amendment, is reinstated. Defendants are enjoined from taking any further action contrary to the Roadless Rule without undertaking environmental analysis consistent with this opinion.

09-21-2006, 07:55 AM
Yeah, I found out about it this morning, and thought "whiskey tango..."???
From the Wilderness Society:

In Wilderness Society v U.S. Forest Service, Judge Elizabeth
LaPorte of the U.S. District Court Northern District of
California ruled that:

"The State Petitions Rule is set aside and the Roadless Rule ...
is reinstated. Defendants are enjoined from taking any further
action contrary to the Roadless Rule without undertaking
environmental analysis consistent with this opinion."

In short, Judge Laporte ruled that the Bush Administration
violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Endangered Species Act when it repealed the 2001 Roadless Rule.
The court reinstated the 2001 Rule nationwide and enjoined any
management activity contrary to the Rule, except in the Tongass
National Forest. The court did not extend the Rule's protections
to the Tongass because the Bush Administration had previously
exempted the Tongass through a lawsuit settlement with the State
of Alaska.

This is a huge victory for our nation's pristine forest lands!

Click the link below to read The Wilderness Society's statement
and get other information about the ruling:

Yeah, 'great' news. All the effort, all the attempts to put land management decisions back in the hands of those who have the greatest personal investment.... shot down by well-heeled legal professionals whose masters value ideals over impact on the ground. Wasted. Well, maybe not: this ain't over.

09-21-2006, 09:00 AM
I wonder what this means for all of the land that has already been leased by oil companies while the Roadless Rule was repealed between 2001 and now? Even if the States had been able to obtain control of the areas, the leased land would still be out of the publics hands.

09-21-2006, 02:16 PM
It means it is about to get ugly. And possibly overturned. Or not. Who knows?
It would not be the first time the large and idealistic environmental groups have tried to get their way in a working group on the one hand, while working on a strategy to take the ball and go home on the other.
They love to use the word 'cynical' to describe their opponents.
Freud called it projection, IMHO.
From Gene King:

State Representative Josh Penry (R-Grand Junction) issued the following statement after a San Francisco judge set aside a state-centered roadless petition process that was implemented by the Forest Service in 2005. The state petition process was offered as a way to break longstanding political fight that has swamped the national roadless discussion for decades.

Penry authored a Colorado law that created Colorado's roadless review task force, and he served as a member of the task force along with a bipartisan group of forest managers, environmentalists, industry representatives and elected officials. The task force undertook an extensive, year-long public input process. The task force reached a widely-hailed agreement about the future management of roadless areas just last Monday.

But today's decision, sparked by a lawsuit by a host of environmental groups who opposed the state petition process, throws into turmoil and uncertainty Colorado's landmark roadless agreement. It is not clear what effect the decision will have on Colorado, since it is part of a different appellate circuit. Under the worst case scenario, Colorado could be forced back under a 2001 Roadless Rule promulgated by the Clinton Administration, a rule that significantly limits the Forest Service's ability to treat forests for wildfire effects or insect and disease outbreaks.

Said Penry, "The ink is not even dry on Colorado's historic Roadless compromise and extreme environmentalists in Washington, DC and San Francisco have already sabotaged it. Colorado worked like yeomen to find progress and resolution, but environmental plaintiffs apparently prefer to prolong this decades-old political fight.

"Environmental plaintiffs have won the day and reignited the roadless wars. I have urged the Forest Service, the Governor and our Attorney General to use every tool to fight them and this decision."

Seldom Seen
09-21-2006, 06:41 PM
I appreciate Mr Penry's sentiment and I share in his frustration. I would like to thank him for his tireless effort. Mr Penry's Yin complimented Steve Smith's Yang in working out an amicable solution for all Coloradans.

I would caution Mr Penry, before the name calling, finger pointing, blame game goes further, that the law suit was "sparked" by the states of CA, OR, WA & NM filing against USDA. The suit spawned a frenzy of choosing sides with the states of AK and ID, along with Chevron and various representatives of the timber industry siding with the USDA. MT, MI, Gang-Green sided with CA et.al.

As I read the court decision I get the impression that this is NOT a Gang-Green victory (although I am sure they are proclaiming it for the highest mt tops) BUT, in what is becoming 'classic', a Bosworth/Rea Screw-up!! :mad: Their inattention to detail and inability to follow proper procedure did not cause the greenies to win, insted all of us to loose:rant:

Seldom Seen
09-21-2006, 07:27 PM
Martin to answer your question. I don't know :confused: Haven't heard about any thing in CO yet. Mike Carrier, Natural Resource Advisor to OR's Gov today said, "Despite the judge's ruling, logging would likely continue in two regions of Oregon--Mike's Gulch and Blackberry on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest--where timber sales were approved after the rule was changed"