CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Environmental groups hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal challenging a federal rule that bars development on 50 million acres of roadless areas in national forests, ending one of the main legal battles that had left the rule in doubt for more than a decade.
“The Supreme Court action validates arguably one of most important public land conservation polices in a generation,” said Jane Danowitz, a director of the Pew Environment Group, which has worked on the rulemaking since 1998. “Without the roadless rule and its national standard of protection these millions of acres of pristine forest land could be opened to a variety of development, including logging, mining and drilling.”
The justices said Monday they will leave in place a federal appeals court decision in a case brought by the state of Wyoming and the Colorado Mining Association that upheld the so-called roadless rule that took effect late in the presidency of Bill Clinton.
Wyoming and the Colorado Mining Association said closing so much forest land to development has had serious consequences for residents of Western states and the logging, mining and drilling industries.
Supporters of the rule said the nation’s forests need protection from development to preserve forested areas that provide wildlife and natural resource habitat for hunting, fishing and recreation as well as other benefits. They note the rule has exceptions to allow logging in order to protect the forest from severe wildfires and for public safety.
“We’re glad the Supreme Court put the final nail in the coffin of Wyoming’s case,” Tim Preso, an attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice, said.
The decision means there’s just one more legal challenge pending against the rule. The challenge filed by Alaska is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.
Danowitz expressed confidence that Monday’s Supreme Court decision would mean the demise of the Alaska challenge as well.
“When you get an action by the highest judicial body in the land that validates the roadless rule that bodes well for any future litigation,” she said.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead said restrictions on 3 million acres of national forest in the state would have economic consequences for the state, which relies heavily on the mineral extraction industry.
“While I am disappointed in the decision, I am ready to move on continuing to work with the (U.S.) Forest Service about these concerns,” Mead said in a short statement.
Wyoming’s challenge centered on the contention that the U.S. Forest Service essentially declared forests to be wilderness areas, a power that rests with Congress under the 1964 Wilderness Act.
The U.S. Forest Service currently manages more than 190 million acres of land used for multiple purposes that must comply with strict rules on land use changes spelled out in the federal Wilderness Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
The roadless rule enacted under Clinton in 2001 had been upheld earlier by both the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit in separate cases.
The 10th Circuit overturned Cheyenne-based U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer who had decided the rule created a de facto wilderness area.
The years of legal wrangling led to a variation of the national rule in Colorado, which developed its own regulations for the state’s 4.2 million acres of roadless areas. Its regulations, approved by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in July, are less stringent, allowing more flexibility to allow for the thinning of forests to help ski resort expansion and coal mining in the North Fork region.
Colorado Mining Association President Stuart Sanderson said the Supreme Court action is disappointing but limited development of coal in some Colorado national forest areas will continue.
“The mines in this region employ more than 1,000 workers, those jobs must be preserved,” Sanderson said.
Comments (38)
Add commentThe federal government does
The federal government does not own any land outside of Washington DC. The states should be able to decide what to do on their own property. Quit believing the lie about federal land.
Let the states control their
Let the states control their land.
The federal goverment is a guest.
thislittlepiggie: I am not a believer.
'Public land' does not belong to the public. It belongs to the Government and supported by the Supreme Court. You can't beat that line-up.
Ken - the gov. is we the
Ken - the gov. is we the people
abnotey
Government was we the people
abnotey: yeah, right. Well, the 'people' in the oval office
can pretty much slice up your state with a stroke of a pen.
Power to the people.
we all like access to other
we all like access to other states' resources. The federal government simply preserves these parks for everyone. Future generations can appreciate the forests that are protected. In Alaska I don't think we realize since we're used to largely unaltered forests. Not so for the rest of the country.
Glad to hear the supreme court upheld the roadless rule. Look at Montana Creek here in Juneau or outer point. You put a road in and some punk will start dumping trash there. We've got enough TVs and couches in the landfills.
Nice to know some punk is being thwarted. But how, exactly
does the roadless rule make it easier for the people to gain access to our 'parks'?
ken,
the roadless rule is not intended to provide access. The access is already there. Every protected park in America already has access. The access just doesn't allow for heavy equipment.
Just like Tongass National Forest, no one is barred from enjoying it. Foot trails everywhere with access points from the road system scattered around. Everyone is restricted equally and fairly but the forest is most definitely available for access.
No one gets to take more than the rest of us and this guarantees its existence for our children's children. How can anyone want to take that away?
How is the 'access' with strollers or wheelchairs?
Or is this 'heavy equipment'? I would think public access roads could be allowed without the threat of heavy equipment sneaking in and carting away the natural resources in the middle of the night.
"Everyone is restricted equally and fairly..." The ADA may not be on the same page here.
Lets be honest here. Trails are limiting in many ways, one being that the incursions into the parks are restricted by how many miles one can cover on foot, and the labor intensive requirements of creating and maintaining them because everything has to be packed in. This inherently allows access only to the outer perimeters of huge swaths of 'public land'.
The roadless rule is designed to thwart the future generation of children who want to develop.
Ken you look like you live in
Ken you look like you live in a box. Do you ever get outside and smell the fresh air or walk in the woods? I think you could use a little sunshine... go sit in the sun and think about what keeps our wildlife alive. Our wildlife need homes to.
Ken,
I agree, our national forests do treat the handi-capable more unfairly. If one needs a paved road to enjoy the beauty of our national forests then one might be out of luck. Call me crazy, but a paved road with wheel chair access to me is defeating the purpose of protecting national forests for future generations.
Where do we draw a line? Protecting the natural beauty for future generations while obviously ignoring the needs of a few or protecting the natural beauty by paving it and putting up rest stops, viewing stations, restaurants, hotels, etc.? Again, call me crazy, but I'm gonna error on the side of natural beauty.
"The roadless rule is designed to thwart the future generation of children who want to develop."
You really believe environmentalists care only about "thwarting" developers? I'm gonna disagree entirely with this particular comment.
abnotey: have you surfed google earth lately?
That is about as close as any of us are ever going to get to millions of acres of reserved 'parks'. Alaska is under little threat.
cheesy: I never mentioned environmentalists. What I did say was directed towards the methods employed by the few (actually just one) in the oval office with very sweeping powers.
Ok so you like your box. My
Ok so you like your box. My mother sort of lives in one to, if she goes any where its via google earth, but not everyone is like that. So, then think of it like this: Wild places are healthy for our imagination, we need them.
...."at the same time that we are earnest to explore and learn all things, we require that all things be mysterious and unexplorable, that land and sea be infinitely wild, unsurveyed, and unfathomed by us,....We need to witness our own limits transgressed and some life pasturing freely where we never wander." Thoreau
Imagine growing up in a world where "YOU KNOW" there are no more wild places to wander and explore.
This is what our children’s future would be like without the Roadless rule; these areas would be developed by private enterprise and closed off to the general public.
I don't believe it is our right to take wild places away from our children or from wildlife.
ken,
I certainly interpreted the comment as a sweeping generalization focused on the legislation itself. This is obviously supported by environmentalists. So If environmentalists support the legislation, and you suggest the legislation is only intended to "thwart" future development, my interpretation would be environmentalists intend to thwart future development. At any rate, the legislation does no one any good to simply block develpment.
Bill Clinton's administration initiated the plan, but it fell into the hands of the Bush Administration. Congress made the final call in 2002 to legislatively authorize the roadless rule. This was in no way the call of one man. I'm not sure what your last statement is intended to mean. The roadless rule was supported by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It is in effect the product of both administration's views. It's not partisan. It's not intended to "thwart" development. I don't even know where you came up with this but if you want to explain I'm all ears (eyes).
I am not loosing any sleep over the issue. It has been this way
since the territorial days. In many respects I still feel like a territory. What I do take issue with is the "it's for the future generation" argument. I remember being one of these and quite frankly, while I am glad to live in the 'last frontier' unblemished by industry, this boomer generation member is no closer to enjoying much of these 'public lands'.
I am certain the 'lower 48' state residents will appreciate the fact that when resources have been sucked out of their ground Alaska will always be there to take up the slack.
Allow me some time to address the 'stroke of a pen' comment. I believe I may be able to back it up to your satisfaction.
abnotey: I just love how people have just the right 'box'
to put me in. :)
50 Million Acres = 78,125.0
50 Million Acres = 78,125.0 Square miles
New Jersey = 7,790 square miles
Indiana = 36,185 square miles
Washington = 68,126 square miles
How much damage can a few roads do in all that land?
Why can’t we have better access to “our” parks?
Why can’t my non-ambulatory grandmother ride in a vehicle and see her park?
The roadless rule was enacted
The roadless rule was enacted by Clinton, through executive order, eight days before he was booted from the White House. President Bush relaxed the rule and gave the states more power over their lands.
So, when we get a new president in January 2013, corrections can again be made to this rule. Or maybe Congress will get involved. It's funny how that silly old constitution can be pushed aside when one party is having trouble furthering their agenda. It's not really funny - it's scary.
Why is it all or nothing with the enviro nuts? They basically want NO development anywhere by any industry - plain and simple.
This is what is happening to our public lands because of this rule -
•threats of catastrophic wildfire
•threats of forest infestation and disease
•lack of public access to public lands
•improper resource management
•unhealthy forests
•top-down federal overreach
Earthjustice is nothing short of a domestic terrorist group.
ha! ;)
ha! ;)
you make me smile ken
calypso,
don't forget that the roadless rule act prevents the finding and capture of Bigfoot as well. I'm sure you just forgot to include this risk but we must be aware of ALL the dangers of not building roads through our parks...
noroadfugitive,
Your non-ambulatory grandmother can't take a vehicle and sit on the peak of Mt. McKinley either... does that mean we should immediately begin construction of a highway to the top? Let's be serious... this has nothing to do with gaining access to the parks that people like you could give a rat's ass about. We have pro development on one hand, with far more than 50 million acres to work with, and we have pro-enironmentalists on the other, with 50 million and shrinking to work with. Give it a rest. You've got what you need. There's no shortage of development in this country. To say 50 million acres of land needs to be subdivided "just because" is beyond stupid.
@ken
When you comment as you do, as much as you do, on as many subjects as you do. You paint yourself into a box.
We are only the canvas, you have put the brush and paint, to it.
Is there a name for this box?
I am curious to know how I am perceived.
Chessy, So an area larger
Chessy,
So an area larger than the state of Washington should only be accessible to long distance hikers?
Also
You say the NPS is Shrinking?...Better do your research…
Total NPS acreage 1997 = 77,457,166
Total NPS acreage 2011 = 84,000,000
Here are some large recent additions to the NPS, and this doesn’t count national monuments
Death Valley (Calif.-Nev.), 1994
3,367,627.68
Biscayne (Fla.), 1980
172,924.07
Conaree (SC), 2003
26,545.86 acres
Kenai Fjords (Alaska), 1980
670,642.79
Katmai (Alaska), 1980
3,674,540.87
Great Sand Dunes (CO) 2004
521,490.13
Lake Clark (Alaska), 1980
2,636,839.00
Saguaro (Ariz.), 1994
91,452.95
Dry Tortugas (Fla.), 1992
64,700.00
Wrangell-St. Elias (Alaska), 1980
8,323,617.68
It's probably worth
It's probably worth mentioning that forest ecosystems are important for reasons other than hiking.
noroad,
for one, it's not an area the size of Washington. It's many different areas that in total are equal to the size of Washington. It's important that you understand this distinction. It doesn't require an expert outdoorsman with a sherpa to access 99% of the National Parks. The pristine nature of these areas are the only reason it's appealing. Once you remove the pristine part and build a road so everyone can access it with an RV it's jus the same as all the rest of the country. Is that your intention? Make it wheel chair accessible so no one cares about it anymore?
As far as the roadless rule getting larger, that's just not true. You are referencing park lands, which aren't necessarily protected by the roadless rule. I suggest you do a little research yourself before you mistakenly tell me too.
As far as the lands protected by the roadless rule, they have been shrinking. The roadless rule has been disfigured over the years, and beginning almost immediately after it was signed by Clinton in 2001. The roadless rule has its exceptions. The Tongass is one of them. States like Colorado have exceptions for ski area development, wild fire control, small logging operations. These lands will no doubt continue to shrink.
Chessy, So you believe that
Chessy,
So you believe that building roads threw national parks is equivalent to building a road to the top of Mount Mckinley? Oh I see…they are both national parks…HHmmm
So by that logic we cant build a road next to Safeway in the valley because it would be very hard to build a road to the top of Mount Juneau? Must be the same because they are both in the CBJ.
Your logic is flawed.
noroad,
Now I'm confused. You suggested that because your grandmother could not access all of the park lands with a vehicle that we should be able to build roads for her. I simply put your ridiculous suggestion into perspective with the McKinley comment.
I never said we couldn't build a road, obviously. At this point I am picturing a dog chasing his tail... you're creating my thought process based on your own. It doesn't work that way. Argue with yourself all you want. You don't need to do it on here for everyone to see.
Chessy, You are right that it
Chessy,
You are right that it is not all contiguous land However, the road less rules are, according to the USDA Forest Service “Inventoried road less areas constitute roughly one-third of all National Forest System lands, or approximately 58.5 million acres.”
So one third of all the “peoples” land cannot be used or access by the vast majority of people? How is that fair?
Please cite when you say “As far as the lands protected by the roadless rule, they have been shrinking.”
If we can just say whatever then…uuhhh …87% of all private land is becoming roadless, and the government is selling all that land to take our guns”