Wyoming Judge Again Blocks Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Environment News Service



WASHINGTON, DC (ENS) - The national nonprofit Wilderness Society said it will challenge Tuesday's decision by a federal judge in Wyoming to block the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

For the second time, U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer issued a permanent injunction against the Clinton era roadless rule, saying it violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act.

The case was brought, for the second time, by the State of Wyoming against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies.

Environmentalists believe that Judge Brimmer's order conflicts with, but does not overturn, a 2006 decision by a California federal magistrate judge that upheld the Roadless Rule.

Judge Brimmer's injunction puts at risk 58.5 million acres of pristine national forest lands in 38 states that were protected from road building, logging and other development by a directive of President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Forest Service issued in 1999.

The public process initiated by that directive concluded with the promulgation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule just eight days before the end of the Clinton administration.

More than two million public comments in favor of the roadless rule were received during the comment period, which included 187 public hearings across the country.

Yet, Judge Brimmer did not give weight to the 18 month-long public process and numerous public comments. He did give weight to then Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer's complaint that the public comment period was "extraordinarily short."

"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 laws," Judge Brimmer wrote in his injunction order.

The judge wrote, "The Forest Service's preordained conception of what a roadless area would be, and its schedule for implementing the final rule, caused the Forest Service to drive the Roadless Rule through the administrative process without weighing the pros and cons of reasonable alternatives to the Roadless Rule. At no time did the Forest Service stop to consider whether Roadless Rule was the best idea for the greatest number of people."

Mike Anderson, an attorney with The Wilderness Society, said the group will appeal Judge Brimmer's order to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The Roadless Rule has been the subject of repeated lawsuits from both opponents and supporters.

• In July 2003, Judge Brimmer rejected the rule in a lawsuit brought by the state of Wyoming, which has about 3.5 million acres of national forests subject to protections set forth by the rule.


• In May 2005, the Bush administration replaced the Roadless Rule with the State Petitions Rule that required governors to petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture to protect national forests in their states.


• Environmentalists sued to reinstate the Roadless Rule. In September 2006, Judge Elizabeth Laporte, Magistrate for the U.S. District Court for Northern California, ruled that the administration had illegally repealed the roadless rule.


• The judge set aside 2005 State Petitions Rule and reinstated the Roadless Rule nationwide, except in Alaska's Tongass National Forest.


• On November 29, 2006, Judge Laporte issued an injunction halting all activities inconsistent with the Roadless Rule. In her injunction, Judge Laporte stated that because the 2001 rule had been repealed illegally, all projects in roadless areas inconsistent with that rule were also illegal and must be halted.


• On February 6, 2007 Judge Laporte issued a final injunction, clarifying that her November 2006 injunction extended to oil and gas drilling permits as well as leases issued since May 2005.

In his order issued Tuesday, Judge Brimmer wrote that Magistrate Judge Laporte's injunction had the effect of "surreptitiously" reinstituting the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule although he had previously decided it was illegal.

Anderson says he believes Laporte's decision is still in effect. "It is not in any way overturned or compromised by Judge Brimmer's decision in Wyoming today," Anderson told the Associated Press. "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 Salzburg said the injunction was appropriate because roads might be needed in national forests to fight fires and insect infestations.

Conservation groups that intervened in the case in support of the federal agencies are the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Rivers Council, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.

Read Judge Brimmer's 102 page order issued on August 12, 2008

Read the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Wilderness bill raises storm

Big Bear Lake officials say it would hurt fire-suppression efforts

San Bernardino Sun
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer

BIG BEAR LAKE - Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Hilda Solis want to have a 6,000-plus acre patch of forest on Sugarloaf Mountain declared wilderness area.

But city, fire and water officials are fighting that effort, concerned that such a designation would thwart firefighting and forest-thinning efforts and quell the possible future expansion of a water- treatment plant near the proposed wilderness area.

The proposal by Boxer, D-Calif., and Solis, is part of their California Wild Heritage Act of 2007, introduced Feb. 6 in the House of Representatives. It aims to designate 2.4 million acres of wilderness and segments of wild and scenic rivers throughout the state and calls for, among other things, 6,336 acres of designated wilderness land on Sugarloaf Mountain and about 17,920 acres in the San Gorgonio Wilderness.

"From a fire-suppression standpoint, fire suppression efforts will be limited," said John Morley, chief of the Big Bear Lake Fire Department. "Generally, the (fire) equipment isn't allowed in a wilderness area. You're not supposed to take dozers in there. You're not supposed to take engines in there, and you're not allowed to take chain saws in there."

Approval to access a wilderness area during a wildland fire is possible, but it generally has to be approved by federal officials in Washington, Morley said.

"When you have a fire going on and are trying to get approvals from someone outside this area, I don't think it's in the best interest of public safety," Morley said.

In a prepared statement Friday, Boxer said, "Under my wilderness bill, federal officials have been given full authority to act in every way they deem necessary to prevent and extinguish fires.

"Most Californians want to see these God-given wilderness areas protected for future generations. But if this community is so united against this potential designation, I certainly will take that into account as the bill moves forward."

According to Section 102(d) of the proposed legislation, the agriculture secretary may take appropriate measures to control and prevent fire through federal, state or local agencies and jurisdictions. Such measures include the use of mechanized and motorized equipment for fire suppression, including aircraft for fire retardant and water drops.

Early last week, the Big Bear Lake City Council approved a resolution opposing the designation of the wilderness area, and will send it to Boxer's and Solis' offices, city planner Sandra Molina said.
"We'll also send it to other representatives in the Senate and (House), and we're also going to be asking the local boards to join us in opposing the designations," she said.

In 1964, Congress enacted the Wilderness Act to protect designated federal lands from being encroached upon by humans and to retain their "primeval character and influence." The act prohibits, with certain exceptions, commercial enterprises and permanent roads from being built on the land.

In the last six years, the San Bernardino Mountains have been vexed with drought and a bark-beetle infestation that have combined to destroy more than 1million trees. In October 2003, the Old Fire cut an eastward path across the mountains from Waterman Canyon to Highland, destroying hundreds of homes.

The threat of fire still weighs heavily on the minds of those living both in the mountain communities and the valleys below.

"We don't want some overlay of that land that's going to inhibit the ability for people to go and do fuels work," Morley said. "I think clearly that everybody who lives in this valley is here for a reason, and we enjoy the environment, but I think sometimes things can be done to the environment that can pose a danger to citizens in this valley, and that's what we're concerned about."