Appeals court reinstates
roadless rule

Administration still plans
to reduce protection

By Vera Smith, Conservation Director

This past December, in a strongly worded repudiation, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a preliminary injunction issued by an Idaho judge on the Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This makes the popular roadless conservation rule, which provides additional protection for 58 million acres of National Forest, the law of the land.

In a 2­1 decision, the Court forcefully upheld the legality of the Roadless Rule. It reversed the Idaho district court decision and lifted the preliminary injunction that the Idaho court had imposed on May 10, 2001. In its decision, the court stated that the merits of the timber industry case were very weak and not likely to succeed in the long run even if the Idaho judge rules in their favor again.

 The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a clear and resounding victory for those advocating to protect national forest roadless areas. In determining that the Idaho district had “abused its discretion” in enjoining the Rule, the Court of Appeals firmly rejected all of  the claims of legal violations made by Boise Cascade Corporation and other plaintiffs in the Idaho case.

This now puts the spotlight on the Bush administration, which has announced that it plans to revise the rule to allow for continued logging and road building on at least ten million now-protected acres. In recent days the administration has also proposed to undermine the National Forest Management Act and other land management laws by implementing a series of amendments to existing regulations.

The administration is writing new language into Forest Service planning regulations to reduce the public’s opportunity to participate in forest planning and environmental protections. The administration also wants to allow land management agencies to undertake fuel projects, including commercial timber sales, without environmental review or public comment under an administrative procedure known as a “categorical exclusion.”

All of these proposed rulemakings are of serious concern to the Colorado Mountain Club because they are crafted with the intent to reduce public involvement as well as environmental and scientific review. The CMC believes that the quality of forest management proposals improves dramatically with the public’s input and environmental review. Moreover, if the Forest Service believes that its proposals are benefiting the forest and are well-crafted, they should welcome public scrutiny; the fact that the administration would like to remove these requirements is worrisome indeed. P