14/12/02 -- VICTORY: Roadless Rule Upheld as Bush Moves to Speed Logging

VICTORY

***********************************************

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

Roadless Rule Upheld as Bush Moves to Speed Logging

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal

http://www.EnvironmentalSustainability.info/ -- Eco-Portal

http://www.ClimateArk.org/ -- Climate Change Portal

December 14, 2002

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org

A U.S. federal court has upheld the legality of the Roadless Area

Conservation Rule which bars almost all roadbuilding and logging on

58.5 million acres of unroaded areas in America’s national forests.

Only a day before, the White House announced a fire-prevention plan

that called for expediting logging on public lands by limiting

environmental reviews and public appeals. Two weeks ago, the

administration indicated it wants to give managers of the nation's

192 million acres of national forests and grasslands greater leeway

to approve logging and commercial activities with less examination of

potential environmental damages.

The point is made in an article below that "Americans

overwhelmingly support protecting wild forests, and the Bush

Administration should honor the wishes of citizens, not special

interests." Forests.org worked extensively with the forest

conservation movement to have the rule enacted – generating tens of

thousands of public comments. As of today roadless forest protection

is the law of the land! America’s last wild places are protected.

Congratulations are in order. The question - of course - is for how

long with a President committed to cutting, drilling and otherwise

industrially exploiting America’s remaining large, species rich and

relatively intact wild ecosystems.

President Bush’s imperial, secretive and oil oligarchy driven rule

is a global environmental catastrophe – as important protections for

forests, air, climate and water continue to be gutted. This

ecologically depauperate administration must be stopped before they

and their oil cronies destroy the Earth’s life support systems.

About the only hopes politically are with a small minority of

environmentally aware Republicans that need to be appealed to stop

Bush’s anti-environment policies – and the other is the American

court system, which came through in this case. Bush’s forest

proposals "will fail to protect communities from forest fires while

increasing the role of the timber industry and limiting the role of

the public in decisions that affect the health of national forests."

The Toxic Texan’s environmental agenda is tantamount to eco-

Armageddon, is terrorizing humanity, and must be stopped.

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1

Title: Roadless Rule Upheld as Bush Moves to Speed Logging

Date: December 14, 2002

Byline: Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, December 12, 2002 (ENS) - A federal appeals court

today upheld the legality of a rule aimed at protecting 58.5 million

acres of unroaded areas in national forests from logging and

roadbuilding. The decision came one day after President George W.

Bush ordered the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to take

administrative actions aimed at reducing the environmental reviews

required before approval of forest fuels reduction projects.

The court's decision could have implications for the Bush

administration's proposal, announced Wednesday, which would make it

easier for forest managers to approve forest thinning projects to

clear brush and small trees - as well as large, commercially valuable

timber.

Court Upholds Roadless Rule

In a decision released today, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

struck down a lower court injunction blocking the implementation of

the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, ruling that the regulation

complies with federal law.

"This means that the roadless rule is the law of the land," said

Nathaniel Lawrence, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources

Defense Council (NRDC) and co-counsel for environmental intervenors

in the case. "The appeals court has resoundingly overturned the

temporary injunction blocking the rule."

The U.S. Forest Service issued the Roadless Area Conservation

Rule on January 12, 2001 during the last days of the Clinton

administration. The rule bars almost all roadbuilding and logging on

58.5 million acres of unroaded areas in national forests.

"Today's ruling vindicates the outpouring of public support and the

extraordinary process that led to this monumental conservation rule,"

continued Lawrence. "It's a ray of hope at a time when our national

forests are under assault by the Bush administration and its timber

industry allies. The question now is whether the administration will

enforce the rule or continue trying to gut it."

After the roadless rule was issued, the state of Idaho, Boise Cascade

Corporation, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and recreational groups sued

the federal government, arguing that they would suffer irreparable

harm. Judge Edward Lodge of the U.S. District Court in Idaho agreed

that the plaintiffs would likely win their case, and on May 10, 2001,

he granted their motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the

rule.

By the time of Judge Lodge's ruling, the Bush administration had

entered office, and the new administration declined to appeal the

ruling, infuriating many supporters of the rule. But the case went to

the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals anyway, because environmental

groups intervened and appealed on the side of the federal government.

The appeals court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Forest

Service violated the requirement for public input in crafting the

rule. In the 55 page ruling, Judge Ronald Gould wrote that, "Upon our

review of the record, we are persuaded that the Forest Service did

provide the public with extensive, relevant information on the

Roadless Rule. We also conclude that the Forest Service allowed

adequate time for meaningful public debate and comment."

The appeals court noted that "the Forest Service held over 400 public

meetings about the Roadless Rule and that it received over 1,150,000

written comments." It also rejected arguments that the Forest Service

failed to consider an adequate range of alternatives.

"It's good news that the court upheld Americans' right to say they

want these special places protected for future generations to enjoy,"

said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, another of the

environmental groups that intervened in the suit. "Americans

overwhelmingly support protecting wild forests, and the Bush

Administration should honor the wishes of citizens, not special

interests."

In the ruling, the court of appeals stated, "Roadless areas in our

national forests also help conserve some of the last unspoiled

wilderness in our country. The unspoiled forest provides not only

sheltering shade for the visitor and sustenance for its diverse

wildlife but also pure water and fresh oxygen for humankind."

The case will now return to U.S. District Court in Idaho for further

review.

"The Roadless Rule is wildly popular with the overwhelming majority

of Americans who want to see our national forests protected," said

Lawrence. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration never really tried

to defend the rule. In fact, the administration made it clear that it

was using Judge Lodge's opinion as a rationale for reopening and

potentially gutting the rule. Since then, we've seen the

administration steadily hack away at this and other forest

conservation measures."

Bush Seeks to Loosen Restrictions on Forest Thinning Projects

On Wednesday, for example, the Bush administration proposed

restricting opportunities for judicial, public and environmental

review of forest thinning projects. The move came after Congress

declined to pass legislation this year to enact the Bush

administration's plans for reducing wildfire risks in national

forests.

The administration argues that "excessive analysis, ineffective

public involvement and management inefficiencies" slow the approval

process for forest management projects that are needed to reduce the

risk of catastrophic wildfires that can destroy forests, leaving

nothing but scorched, sterile earth behind.

"We are trying to expedite our processes in order to prevent

catastrophic damage to our forests and rangelands by returning these

lands to good health, which will protect lives, property and homes,"

said Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who met Wednesday with President

Bush, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, and White House Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair James Connaughton.

"Needless delay closes the narrow window of opportunity we have to do

essential fuels treatment work between fire seasons," Norton added.

"Forest ecologists and the land managers know the truth: We cannot

afford to wait any longer. If we fail to act, we will continue to see

millions of acres of forests go up in smoke every year."

Secretary Veneman said federal, state and community leaders have

"reached an unprecedented level of agreement" on how best to protect

communities and the environment from wildfires.

"The actions we are taking today will continue to build upon the

President's Healthy Forests Initiative [announced earlier this year]

and strengthen our management tools and firefighting capabilities to

improve forest health," Veneman added.

But conservation groups say the Bush proposal will fail to protect

communities from forest fires while increasing the role of the timber

industry and limiting the role of the public in decisions that affect

the health of national forests.

"We know how to save homes and communities from forest fires, and

this is not the way to do it," said Amy Mall, a forest and land

specialist at NRDC. "This plan is nothing more than a payback to the

timber industry, allowing it to remove trees far from where people

live."

Mall noted that numerous studies show that the way to save houses

from forest fires is to remove trees and bushes within a few dozen

yards of the homesite and use fire resistant building materials.

Homes that are not fire proofed in this way can burn down in even low

intensity wildfires.

"It is disingenuous to promote increased logging packaged as fuel

reduction," said Pope. "If the Bush administration is serious about

protecting communities from forest fires, it should focus resources

on real fuel reduction near at risk communities instead of opening

more loopholes for the timber industry."

Under the administration's proposal, logging companies would

be permitted to cut large, fire resistant trees down, sometimes in

areas far from populated areas, along with the brush and smaller

trees that fuel most damaging fires.

Environmental impact reviews of these projects would be limited or

absent, and the projects would be approved under shortened schedules

with new restrictions on both public comment and judicial review.

"These proposals have nothing to do with forest fires and everything

to do with money," said Phil Clapp, president of the National

Environmental Trust. "If the Bush administration really cared about

protecting people's homes, the president would cut the huge logging

subsidies to the timber industry that create unhealthy, fire prone

forests."

Some lawmakers from western states praised the Bush proposal.

Representative Scott McInnis, a Colorado Republican and chair of the

forests subcommittee of the House Resources Committee, said the

package "represents real progress in addressing the growing wildfire

epidemic."

"With the next fire season a few short months away, western

communities want forward movement and they want it now," McInnis

said.

House Resources committee chair James Hansen, a Utah Republican, said

the record wildfire seasons in 2000 "were a clear call to action."

"The Forest Service tried to respond to that call, but it was hobbled

by bureaucratic red tape and frivolous lawsuits," Hansen continued.

"We have two choices: Act swiftly this winter or do little and, next

summer, spend another $1 billion fighting ferocious wildfires that

eat up another six million acres of forests and habitat, destroying

homes and killing wildlife. We choose to act."

But Democrats in Congress said the forests plan is just another in a

series of Bush proposals that would weaken environmental laws.

Representative George Miller, a California Democrat who sits on the

House Resources committee, called the plan "the latest ax to fall on

environmental protections and public participation."

"I am struck that the President would move forward without debate in

Congress on a policy that is so controversial and so important,"

Miller added. "There is no question that we need to take steps to

protect western communities at severe risk of wildfires while also

protecting the rights of the public to participate in decisions that

affect their forests. The president's policy will not do that. It

will simply continue the raging legal battles and animosity that

decades of bad forest policy have engendered throughout the west."

"Obviously President Bush has interpreted the recent elections as a

mandate to pollute, cut and drill," Miller concluded. Today's opinion

from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is available at:

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/

ITEM #2

Title: Ban on Roads in Pristine National Forests Reinstated

Date: December 13, 2002

Byline: Elizabeth Shogren and Bettina Boxall, Times Staff Writers

An appeals court lifts an injunction on the Clinton-era rule. But the

White House refused to defend it, and several legal challenges

remain.

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court has reinstated a Clinton

administration ban on road building in 58.5 million acres of remote

national forest land.

For the time being, at least, the 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit Court

of Appeals panel of judges protects some of the most pristine public

forest land in the country from logging, mining and development.

It could also block hotly contested Bush administration logging plans

to reduce the wildfire threat in California's Sierra Nevada and other

parts of the West, according to environmentalists.

The ruling, announced Thursday, lifts an injunction against the ban

that had been imposed by a federal district court in Boise, Idaho,

and returns the case to that court.

While the roadless rule is back in effect, it faces legal challenges

in several courts around the country. The attorney general-elect of

Idaho vowed Thursday that his state would vigorously pursue its

lawsuit against the road-building ban.

"We think it's a very bad decision. It's bad for Idaho's jobs and

economy," said Lawrence Wasden, who takes office in January and is

currently chief of staff for the incumbent attorney general. Wasden

said his office will immediately seek a review by the full 9th

Circuit and will ask for another stay of the roadless rule.

Should a second appeal fail, the case could then be taken to the U.S.

Supreme Court or returned to the district court for trial.

Environmentalists, who have suffered a number of forest policy

defeats as the Bush administration attempts to weaken logging curbs

adopted under Clinton, were elated by the appeals opinion.

"This decision blunts one of the major thrusts of this

administration's three-pronged assault on our national forests --

undoing roadless areas, undermining forest management regulations and

boosting logging under the guise of fire protection," said Rodger

Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, one of the

environmental groups who intervened in the case.

"Again and again, the White House has made a strategic decision to

side with the timber industry against the overwhelming desires of the

American people, and the higher court just told them they picked the

wrong side," Schlickeisen said.

Plaintiffs in the case -- including Idaho, several snowmobile clubs,

the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and timber industry giant Boise Cascade

Corp. -- claimed the federal government had failed to follow the

National Environmental Policy Act when preparing the roadless rules.

With strong language, the San Francisco panel rejected that argument.

Finding that the U.S. Forest Service had provided the public with

extensive information on the rule and allowed for meaningful public

debate and comment, the appeals court concluded that the plaintiffs

did not have a strong chance of prevailing in the case and therefore

an injunction should not have been issued.

"The district court proceeded on an incorrect legal premise, applied

the wrong standard for injunction and abused its discretion in

issuing a preliminary injunction," the appeals court wrote.

Although the Bush administration has repeatedly said it supports the

principles behind the roadless rule, environmentalists argue that its

actions point to a different set of priorities.

When the administration failed to appeal District Judge Edward J.

Lodge's injunction blocking the roadless policy, critics charged that

the White House had effectively abandoned a regulation not to its

liking. Moreover, the 9th Circuit cited the case's "unusual

procedural setting," in which the defendant, the Bush administration,

chose not to defend itself.

Responding to the appeals court's decision, U.S. Department of

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey said Thursday that the agency

would allow the roadless regulations to take effect.

"The Forest Service is committed to protecting and managing roadless

values and considers inventoried roadless areas an important

component of the national forest system," Rey said in a statement.

"Over the last year, we have been working toward a responsible and

balanced approach that fairly addresses concerns raised by states,

tribes and local communities impacted by the rule, and incorporates

the department's May 4, 2001, principles of informed decision making:

working together; protecting forests, communities, homes and property

from fire; and protecting access to property."

However, the ban could interfere with the Forest Service's plans to

aggressively thin areas of national forests considered vulnerable to

fire. Environmentalists and some forest scientists have argued that

the plans are thinly veiled designs to give logging companies access

to some of the oldest and most commercially valuable timber.

"Despite the ban, I will not be surprised if the Forest Service

pushes ahead with its plans," said Neil Lawrence, a lawyer with the

Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that appealed

the injunction imposed by the Idaho court. "Where they push ahead,

they will be challenged," Lawrence said.

The road building ban was one of the more contentious environmental

regulations of the Clinton administration. Timber and recreation

interests have bitterly attacked it, while conservation groups just

as emphatically endorsed it as a badly needed protection for

remaining pristine national forest land.

Democratic members of Congress said Thursday that the ruling will

force the Bush administration to abide by that protection.

"This ruling tells the Bush administration that it cannot arbitrarily

bypass rules it doesn't like; rules must be written in the light of

day and with input from all of the public," said Sen. Maria Cantwell

(D-Wash.).

Rep. Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia, ranking Democrat on the

House Resources Committee, added: "Today's 9th Circuit decision

serves as welcome news for the American people who treasure our

national forests. As the court concludes, the Clinton administration

complied with environmental laws and fully involved the public in

developing its landmark and popular policy to protect the remaining

pristine national forest lands.

"By contrast, the Bush administration -- which failed to appeal or

defend the Clinton roadless policy in the litigation -- is

aggressively seeking to reduce and even eliminate the public's role

in national forest management. The sad reality is that national

forest roadless areas are still not safe from the current

administration's chain saws."

Marty Hayden, a lobbyist for the environmental group Earthjustice,

said the ruling would speak loudly to the other courts considering

cases challenging the road ban.

"This doesn't tell the lower court what to rule, but it does send a

very strong signal to the lower court," Hayden said.

In its opinion, the 9th Circuit noted the value of the remote country

protected by the roadless rule.

"Roadless areas in our national forests also help conserve some of

the last unspoiled wilderness in our country," the panel wrote.

"The unspoiled forest provides not only sheltering shade for the

visitor and sustenance for its diverse wildlife but also pure water

and fresh oxygen for humankind.

"In contrast, road construction and reconstruction facilitates forest

management by timber harvest and possibly aiding fire prevention, but

it is to a degree inimical to conservation."

ITEM #3

Title: Environmentalists cheer rare victory as court restores forest

Date: December 14, 2002

Byline: MATTHEW DALY

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After a series of victories by the Bush

administration on forest policy, environmentalists finally won one.

A federal appeals court last week restored a Clinton administration-

era ban on road building in about 58 million acres of federal forest.

Environmentalists said the decision was a warning to the government

that attempts to weaken logging curbs adopted under President Clinton

face significant obstacles.

"This ruling should be a wake-up call to the administration as they

attempt to undo fundamental protections for our national forests,"

said Doug Heiken of the Oregon Natural Resources Council, an advocacy

group.

The dispute on road building is just one of many areas where

environmentalists are battling the current administration on forest

management issues.

Only a day before the ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House announced a fire-prevention

plan that called for quicker cutting of trees and overgrowth on

public lands by limiting environmental reviews and public appeals.

Two weeks ago, the administration said it would give managers of the

nation's 192 million acres of national forests and grasslands greater

leeway to approve logging and commercial activities with less

examination of potential environmental damages. Officials said their

intent was to speed decisions and end what Forest Service Chief Dale

Bosworth calls "analysis paralysis."

Environmentalists said that was a guise and that the administration's

actions serve the same goal -- increasing logging at the expense of

forest protection.

"Again and again, the White House has made a strategic decision to

side with the timber industry against the overwhelming desires of the

American people, and the higher court just told them they picked the

wrong side," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of

Wildlife, one of the environmental groups that intervened in the

roadless case.

Although the Bush administration has said it supports the principles

behind the roadless rule, officials declined to defend the rule in

court. That led environmental groups to intervene in an Idaho case

brought by the Boise Cascade Corp. and a coalition of Western logging

and snowmobiling interests.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge had halted the rule, which prohibits

virtually all road building or other development in roadless parcels

that cover a third of the national forests, or 2 percent of the U.S.

land mass.

By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court reversed Lodge's temporary

injunction, saying the Forest Service had met all the legal

requirements in developing the road ban.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a champion of the roadless rule, said

the ruling "tells the Bush administration that it cannot arbitrarily

bypass rules it doesn't like."

Mark Rey, an Agriculture Department undersecretary who oversees the

Forest Service, said officials were reviewing the decision. He

acknowledged a road ban will take effect, although there could be

changes to the one challenged in court.

Timber and mining interests, as well as some recreational vehicle

users, have lobbied the administration to revise the rule.

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., senior Democrat on the House Resources

Committee, said Rey's response showed environmentalists should not

relax.

"The sad reality is that national forest roadless areas are still not

safe from the current administration's chain saws," he said. ------

On the Net:

Roadless rule: http://roadless.fs.fed.us

Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defenders.org

ITEM #4

Title: Bush Proposes Change to Allow More Thinning of

Date: December 12, 2002

Byline: KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — Casting the threat of wildfires next year as

an emergency, the Bush administration today proposed rule changes

that it said would speed up environmental reviews to allow the

thinning of forests, intended to reduce the buildup of dense stands

of trees and dry tinder on millions of acres across the country.

While the proposal was short on details, it did suggest that thinning

projects could be undertaken without environmental impact statements

and assessments if they were, in the judgment of the Forest Service,

unlikely to affect the environment.

This possibility alarmed some environmental organizations, which said

that thinning was still considered risky and that bypassing

environmental reviews was like issuing a blank check to the timber

industry to let it log under the guise of protecting the forest.

Moreover, they said, by proposing these changes administratively

instead of legislatively, the president avoids contentious public

debate in Congress. The rules are being published in the Federal

Experts generally agree that a century of mismanagement of the

forests — including fire suppression, allowing tinder to build up;

selective logging of the biggest trees; and grazing — created

conditions for the kind of catastrophic fires that swept across the

West this summer. The fires burned more than 7.1 million acres,

killed 21 firefighters, destroyed 23,000 structures and forced tens

of thousands of people from their homes.

But the experts disagree over the solution.

The president proposed this year what he called the "healthy forest"

initiative, intended to streamline the bureaucratic process that he

said had prevented the timely and effective carrying out of wildfire

prevention programs on public lands. That proposal did not pass

Congress.

Ann M. Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, said at a White House

briefing today after meeting with the president, "Even though we have

more agreement than we ever have had on what to do, we continue to be

hampered by outdated, inefficient and time-consuming processes that

often delay projects to improve forests and rangeland health until

it's too late."

Ms. Veneman said the administration was undertaking pilot thinning

and burning projects in 10 areas. The thinning, or "fuels reduction,"

is scheduled to begin soon near several communities where people are

worried about their houses catching on fire, including near Mendocino

National Forest in California; Pocatello, Idaho; Mesquite, Nev.;

Rogue River, Ore.; and several projects in northeastern Michigan.

Jack Ward Thomas, chief of the Forest Service under President Bill

Clinton, said that the proposal was very sketchy but that he thought

it was worth a try.

"You can't tell what that says and neither can I," said Mr. Thomas,

now a professor of conservation at the University of Montana,

referring to the administration's proposal. "I understand what

they're saying in theory, and in theory it's difficult to disagree

with any of it, but the devil is in the details."

Nonetheless, he said: "It is real that over the years we have

developed these incredibly difficult and laborious processes, and

this administration is saying, `Give us a chance,' and I for one am

willing to give them a chance. The Forest Service isn't nuts, and I

don't think the administration is. If they were to do terrible and

awful things, the wrath of God will come down on them because

everyone is looking."

Similarly, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and former

chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he

generally favored thinning, especially in high-risk areas, but,

"unfortunately, the administration's proposal is not detailed enough

for me to determine whether it goes too far or whether it contains

adequate safeguards."

Environmentalists were more skeptical.

Niel Lawrence of the Natural Resources Defense Council said the plan

was more pernicious.

"They make no bones about their attempt to exempt from environmental

review whatever they say is going to be beneficial," Mr. Lawrence

said. "We know that they are not proposing any limits on what they

can qualify as beneficial. There's no restriction to small trees or

brush. There's not even a promise to stay out of wilderness areas or

sensitive habitats — only the assertion that if, in their judgment,

the activity would harm those areas, they won't use the exemption."

Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, said,

"Obviously, President Bush has interpreted the recent elections as a

mandate to pollute, cut and drill."

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials

for educational, personal and non-commercial use only. Recipients

should seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY.

All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though

ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the

reader. For additional forest conservation news & information please

see the Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org