Federal Judge throws out Bush's roadless plan. - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 22nd, 2006, 05:05 PM   #1
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,388
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default Federal Judge throws out Bush's roadless plan.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/wa...re&oref=slogin

Judge Voids Bush Policy on National Forest Roads

By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: September 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — In the latest round of legal Ping-Pong over the future of 49 million roadless acres of national forests, a federal judge in California on Wednesday reinstated Clinton-era protections against logging and mining on the land and invalidated the Bush administration’s substitute policy.
The judge, Elizabeth D. LaPorte of Federal District Court in San Francisco, said the new policy had been imposed without the required environmental safeguards.

The reversal, however, does not cover nine million acres of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska because a separate set of legal opinions determines their use.

Judge LaPorte ruled in a suit filed by a coalition of environmental groups and states that objected to the decision last year to scuttle what was widely known as the “roadless rule” of 2001.

The administration replaced that rule with a policy of state-by-state management under which governors submit recommendations for the use of national forest lands within their borders.

Judge LaPorte said that the original rule had laid out “the inherent problems in this kind of local decision making,” particularly “the failure to recognize the cumulative national significance of individual local decisions.”

In repealing the 2001 rule, she said, the Forest Service, which is part of the Agriculture Department, had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires agencies to conduct detailed environmental analyses of alternative approaches.

Judge LaPorte said the Forest Service had failed to consult federal agencies responsible for protecting endangered species. Among other points, her order enjoined the service “from taking any further action contrary to the roadless rule without undertaking environmental analysis.”

Justice Department lawyers had argued that such analyses and endangered-species consultations would be performed as decisions were made on managing individual forests and that giving states the right to petition was more procedural than substantive.

The legislative director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Anna Aurilio, said that the judge’s ruling “sort of took it back to the first principles of environmental protection and said, you can’t just ride roughshod over the environment.”

“They can’t just trample on all the laws,” Ms. Aurilio said of the administration.

Two Agriculture Department officials said they had not decided whether to appeal the decision and would continue to accept and review state petitions.

“As a general matter, we disagree with it, but the court’s order is what it is,” Deputy Under Secretary David P. Tenny said.

Mr. Tenny said working closely with states to gather information was “more effective in managing roadless areas properly than a sweeping approach that deals with all areas at one time.”

“We’ll do our level best to keep working with the states,” he added.

Six states have submitted requests under the changed policy. Five of them — California, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia — sought protection for their entire inventories of roadless areas.

Idaho, with the largest inventory of roadless acres outside Alaska, submitted its petition on Wednesday. It sought full protection for 1.7 million of its 9.3 million roadless acres and the option for logging and road construction in what state officials called the remaining “backcountry” areas.

A state environmental official, James L. Caswell, said that such logging would in general be intended to protect forest health and manage fire risks.

Kristen Boyles, the lawyer for Earthjustice who argued in support of the roadless rule, said the governors’ petitions were “never a guarantee that we would get the protections.” The repeal of the rule “was illegal, Ms. Boyles said, because the Forest Service didn’t look at the environmental consequences or the alternatives.”

In June, the Forest Service sold timber leases on two small roadless tracts of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest near the Oregon coast despite the explicit objections of Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski.

Fire ravaged the area in 2002.

The merits of the roadless policy and its successor have been argued in three federal courts — in Idaho, Wyoming and, now, California — for six years.

The rule was first enjoined by a judge in Idaho, an injunction that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned.

A judge in Wyoming then enjoined the rule nationwide, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit did not rule on that appeal until after the Agriculture Department had rescinded the rule and set up the system of state petitions in May 2005. Thereafter, the 10th Circuit said, any ruling would be moot because the roadless rule was no longer in effect.


does this mean we can kiss forest certifacation good bye?
__________________
Yetti

Last edited by Yetti; September 22nd, 2006 at 05:08 PM.
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 23rd, 2006, 09:35 AM   #2
Trail_Fanatic
Member since 1994
 
Trail_Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-25-06
Location: Muskegon and Oceana Counties
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Unfortunately, this doesn't have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with Certification. They're two seperate ways the greenies have come up with to limit access.
Trail_Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.12178 seconds with 26 queries