New Rule Opens National Forest to Roads

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, May 5, 2005


(05-05) 10:01 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Bush administration, in one of its biggest decisions on environmental issues, moved Thursday to open up nearly a third of all remote national forest lands to road building, logging and other commercial ventures.

The 58.5 million acres involved, mainly in Alaska and in western states, had been put off limits to development by former President Clinton, eight days before he left office in January 2001.

Under existing local forest management plans, some 34.3 million acres of these pristine woodlands could be opened to road construction. That would be the first step in allowing logging, mining and other industry and wider recreational uses of the land. Under proposed rules, new management plans have to be written for the other 24.2 million acres before road building can commence.

Governors have 18 months to submit petitions to the U.S. Forest Service, challenging either the old plan to stop development, or calling for new plans to allow it.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in announcing the rule that his agency "is committed to working closely with the nation's governors to meet the needs of our local communities while protecting and restoring the health and natural beauty of our national forests."

The Agriculture Department, which includes the Forest Service, said governors can base their petitions on requests to protect public health and safety; reduce wildfire risks to communities; conserve wildlife habitat; maintain dams, utilities or other infrastructure; or ensure that citizens have access to private property.

The Forest Service, which will review and have final say over the petitions, calls the new process voluntary and is setting up a national advisory committee on the rule. "If a governor does not want to propose changes ... then no petition need be submitted," the agency says in briefing documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Roadless areas in national forests stretch among 38 states and Puerto Rico. But 97 percent, or 56.6 million acres, are found in 12 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Environmentalists say the new rule also would let the administration rewrite the forest management plans to lift restrictions against development on most of that forest land.

"Yesterday, nearly 60 million acres of national forests were protected and today as a result of deliberate action by the administration they are not," said Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, run by a coalition of environment groups. "The Bush administration plan is a 'leave no tree behind' policy that paves the way for increased logging, drilling and mining in some of our last wild areas."

The Clinton-era rule has been much debated in federal court.

A federal court in Idaho had issued a preliminary injunction against the roadless rule in 2001, but the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned the injunction based on an appeal by environmental groups.

Then in 2003, a federal court in Wyoming overturned the rule. Many of those same groups appeals to the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which heard arguments Wednesday.

The Forest Service believes its new rule "helps us to move forward with a policy that is not clouded by legal uncertainty, as was the case with the 2001 rule," says a current agency document entitled "National Key Messages & Talking Points."

Jim Angell, an attorney with Earthjustice law firm in Denver, who argued the case, called that just an excuse for pushing through a new rule that represents "a huge step back for the protection of our most pristine lands."

"Really, this is an effort to rush this rule through before the 10th Circuit can reverse that Wyoming judge, just like the 9th Circuit did before," he said. "It's incredibly cynical of them to use that judge's ruling as an excuse."

___

On the Net:

Forest Service:

Heritage Forests Campaign:

www.roadless.fs.fed.us

www.ourforests.org

for some reason i thought this was an anti-haq thread.

but yeah, this sucks

those fucking trees have had it too easy for too long.

This is why I'm not a "moral values" voter.

I too want forests to just sit there, unmolested and unused for anything.

I mean, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but couldn't there be a way to do this correctly, or only if a Dem were in office?

I use them to breath!

Why is it necessary to do it at all other than greed is what I'm wondering?

I mean nobody is living in these areas so there is no direct consumer interest other than large corporate production.

Why roads though? Is is so Joe and Jane Schmo can drive their fat asses through these pristine lands. How much "exploring" do people need to do?

If they want to see these lands why don't they get a back pack and just go. Oh that's right it has nothing to do with joe public's enjoyment of the land.

The rich forest industry already has taken 51% of our forest away. Granted we do need paper products to survive as a country. With this they will get another 31% to bring up the total to 82% of our nations forest lost forever. That will leave just 18% for our future generations.

What does it matter? "Yeah, the trees, those useless trees…"

[img][462:500]http://www.ourforests.org/graphics/piechart_large.gif[/img]

If they hadn't made almost all of Washington's backcountry national forest, wilderness or park the loggers would have obliterated the entire state destroying, ecosystem, wildlife habitat & the general enjoyment of hikers and climbers like myself. Fuck them for doing anything to protected areas.

Drive around the outer perimeter. See all those houses being built? That wood gotta come from somewhere.

I mean are we anti-development here, or is there something I am missing?

I'm not saying it IS a good thing, but I don't necessarily think it HAS TO BE A BAD THING. What I'm saying is, aren't we jumping to conclusions?

I mean, sure, Bush is a land-raper in cahoots with the radical right wing that wants to pave over everything and turn our country into a parking lot, so long as his friends get real payed, but I might wanna gove him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

i was under the assumption these were gonna be logging roads, which are unaccessable to the average citizen and just used by the logging companies to access their sites. The total mileage of these roads competes with the federal highway system or something like that. i didn't read the article though.

The baby boomers will be dying soon enough. I'm perfectly willing to buy one of their houses.

MWAHAHAHAHA!

My problem is that no one in the political arena is really thinking about creating a sustainable society. I mean, why do we need "growth" and why is it always good? It's obvious that we can't sustain our world for long if we keep reproducing and consuming our resources at the current rate.

Allowing the construction of roads is Bush's biggest environmental issues decisions? What the fuck are you all complaining about?

OTM (On the Mark)

The government makes roads, so the taxpayers pay for it. Than they aren’t used by anyone but the timber industry, while most of the time they are paid to remove forest. The forest industry is one of the riches in the world because of this. It’s one of the most fucked up policies I have read about and yes they have given plenty to Bush.

I’m not really a big environmentalist but fell in love with the redwoods while living in San Francisco. Only 3% of the redwood forest is left, yet they are still removing those trees as well.

So bottom line, and why I am pissed off is because of greed.

Where do you see the obviousness of this unsustainability? Ohio is probably 75% undeveloped. Hell, Alabama is over that. Drive out the hinterlands and look around, we gots lots of space bubba.

I will agree that being smart about it would help, environmentally as well as aesthetically, but you know..

Problem is, nobody wants to live in Ohio and Alabama. Visit Phoenix sometime- that place is hell in a handbasket. Seattle is becoming completely sprawled and the idea of developing into wildlife habitats makes me ill. The upside (or nature's revenge) is that we are surrounded by big active volcanoes, so nobody is going to build their stupid housing addition close to those.

also, flammable rivers

We're all just cynical as F based on a litany of actions by BushCo and its corporate support these last agonizing four years plus. I'm not giving his admint the benefit of the doubt on anything anymore.

Hear effing hear!

Hopefully I can get some of the wood from the cut down trees. I need a deck to go with the pool I'm building dammit!