Judge axes Bush reversal of roadless rule

A federal judge on Sept. 20 reinstated a Clinton-era ban on road construction, logging and mining in one-third of US national forests, reversing a Bush administration regulation that forced states to petition the federal government for protection of roadless areas. The Forest Service failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts of replacing the roadless rule with the new regulation, US District Judge Elizabeth Laporte wrote in a 55-page ruling. Betsy Loyless, senior vice president of the National Audubon Society, called the decision "one of the most important conservation victories of the Bush era." "The court has made clear that this administration failed to follow environmental safeguards laid out in this country's environmental laws, putting millions of acres of pristine forests at risk of logging and drilling," she said. "It's thrilling to see that our precious roadless forests will remain roadless." Forest Service officials did not have an immediate comment on the ruling, but the Bush administration is likely to appeal the decision. The Clinton administration issued the roadless rule in 2001, just prior to leaving office, specifically blocking road construction, logging and resource extraction in 58.5 million acres of national forests in 38 states and Puerto Rico. The rule allowed new roads if needed to fight fires or to protect public health and safety. Supporters of the Clinton rule say it provides vital protection for some of the nation's last remaining wild places, but several Western states, notably Idaho, as well as logging interests, view the rule as too broad and restrictive. Nine lawsuits involving seven states were filed challenging the Clinton rule, with rulings coming down on both sides of the issue. The Bush administration cited the legal controversy and confusion when it repealed the Clinton rule and issued its own regulation in 2005. Its replacement rule immediately opened some 34 million acres to possible road construction by reinstating old forest management plans and gave state governors until November 2006 to petition the Forest Service to lift or keep in place restrictions on road construction and development. The regulation also gives the US Secretary of Agriculture the final word on whether the governors' petitions are accepted or rejected. But it did little to quell litigation over forest protections. Four states–California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington–and 20 environmental groups filed suit to block the Bush administration's rule. Montana and Maine attorney generals also filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs. Laporte agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act when it developed the regulation. The Bush administration's rule "established a new regime in which management of roadless areas within the national forests would, for the first time, vary not just forest by forest but state by state," Laporte wrote. "This new approach raises a substantial question about the rule's potential effect on the environment." She rejected the administration's claim that the regulation was "procedural only and therefore has no direct or indirect impact on the environment." That explanation "ignores relevant factors and is infected with a clear error of judgment," Laporte wrote. "The rule is not merely procedural," according to Laporte. "Rather, it substantively affects the environment, both by revoking the far-reaching national protections of the prior rule and by instituting in its place a new hybrid management scheme superimposing a completely new state-by-state overlay upon forest plans that allow far more road construction and timber harvesting than the prior roadless rule." Regarding the Endangered Species Act, Laporte concluded, the Forest Service's determination that the new regulation would have no effect on endangered species was "arbitrary and capricious." Furthermore, Laporte determined that the Bush rule is "burdensome on plaintiff states that wish to regain protection of the roadless areas within their borders affected by the roadless rule." Her decision blocks the Forest Service from implementing the new regulation "without undertaking environmental analysis consistent with this opinion."