Lawmakers seek to make 'roadless rule' law of land
Forests: 173 in House support ban on logging, new roads

June 06, 2002

Matthew Daly; The Associated Press


WASHINGTON - A Clinton administration ban on logging and road-building in a third of the nation's federal forests would become law under a bill introduced Wednesday by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Bainbridge Island) and 173 other House members.

The proposal would codify the so-called roadless rule, which bans new roads in 58.5 million acres of untouched national forest land, except in rare circumstances.

The Bush administration has said it supports the ban, but environmentalists complain that the administration has not strongly defended the rule in court. The ban needs to become law to insulate pristine forests from political whims, supporters said.

"We need a law to protect the forests, no matter which way the wind blows in Washington," Inslee said, noting that some trees on federal land are older than the country itself.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), the bill's chief co-sponsor, said the proposal was more than an effort to codify an agency rule.

"We are enshrining in law the views and values of the American people," Boehlert said, citing a recent national poll showing that 76 percent of those surveyed - including 60 percent of Republicans - supported protecting roadless areas.

The bill faces an uphill fight in the Republican-controlled House. Only 18 of the bill's 174 co-sponsors are Republican, and no public hearing has been scheduled.

More than 40 members of Congress, mostly Republican and mostly from the West, sent a letter to President Bush on Wednesday urging him to oppose the bill, which they said would cut off access to significant portions of national forests and increase the risk of catastrophic fire. The bill also would handcuff development efforts, opponents said.

Most of the 58.5 million acres set aside are in the West, although they spread from Alaska's Tongass National Forest to Florida's Apalachicola National Forest.

Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.), chairman of the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee, called the roadless rule a "sham" and said the Clinton administration had ignored significant Western opposition when it implemented the rule just before Clinton left office.

"It is nothing short of astonishing that national environmental groups and certain elected officials in Washington, D.C., continue to push the rule in the face of a federal judge's injunction," McInnis said.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge in Boise blocked the rule from taking effect last year, calling the policy a "Band-Aid approach" toward forest conservation that could do irreparable harm.

A coalition of environmental groups has appealed Lodge's decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Bush administration declined to join the appeal, a decision that lawyers for the groups say hurt their cause and showed the administration's true position on the roadless rule.

Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, who oversees forest issues, disputed that Wednesday. The administration stands by its commitment to protect roadless areas in national forests, he said.

The USDA is working on a new rule that would be "better balanced" than the Clinton rule, Rey said, "and most importantly that will pass legal muster, which the Clinton rule has not so far."

The Inslee-Boehlert bill, which is supported by a host of environmental groups, does not resolve the legal issues raised by the May 2001 court ruling, Rey said.

But supporters said a federal law would make the court ruling moot and demonstrate bipartisan support for the roadless rule. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Edmonds), backs a similar measure in the Senate.


© Associated Press

 

June 5, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to any attempts at this time to codify or administratively implement the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and we applaud your leadership on this complex issue.

Mr. President, as your Administration continues to formulate an
alternative Roadless rule, we urge you to diligently seek out meaningful public input, particularly from the local citizens most directly affected by the process. We also hope that you will continue to work with a broad array of stakeholders, including
environmentalists, recreational enthusiasts, state and local foresters, the forests products industry, and other interested parties, in search of a consensus resolution to this divisive issue. Finally, we urge you to carefully weigh the implications of this rule’s impact on our ability to protect at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire.

As you know, when Federal District Court Judge Edward Lodge blocked implementation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule last year, he
described the rule as "fundamentally flawed" and the rulemaking process as "grossly inadequate." He confirmed that "a Band-aid approach to something this controversial may mask or obscure the symptoms for political purposes but does not address the ‘hard look’ analysis for a cure as required by NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] before environmentally altering actions are put into effect."

The Court validated what elected officials, local communities and
forest user groups had argued throughout the process. Specifically, the Court clearly and correctly pointed out that the previous rule: 1) violated environmental laws;
2) disregarded numerous public notice and comment requirements; and 3) ignored the basic understanding of due process when developing and implementing the rule. Despite these findings, we are concerned that various environmental groups and certain members of Congress continue to push for implementation of the rule.

This case needs to be carefully considered in the courts, and
appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that procedural and environmental laws are respected. Any attempt to codify the legally enjoined rule would be tantamount to a Congressional end-run of landmark environmental laws like NEPA.

Thank you for your leadership and your commitment on the issue. We
appreciate your recognition of the importance of this process to citizens and communities in all corners of the country, and look forward to working with you in the future on this matter.

Sincerely,

John Thune (SD-AL)
Richard Pombo (CA-11)
Scott McInnis (CO-03)
William M. Thomas (CA-21)
W.J. (Billy) Tauzin (LA-03)
Don Young (AK-AL)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Gary G. Miller (CA-41)
Barbara Cubin (WY-AL)
Mark Green (WI-08)
Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Greg Walden (OR-02)
John Boozman (AR-03)
Michael K. Simpson (ID-02)
C.L. "Butch" Otter (ID-01)
John Cooksey (LA-05)
Jim Gibbons (NV-02)
Chris Cannon (UT-03)
George Radanovich (CA-19)
Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Bob Stump (AZ-03)
Bob Schaffer (CO-04)
George R. Nethercutt, Jr. (WA-05)
Charles H. Taylor (NC-11)
John Peterson (PA-05)
John E. Sununu (NH-01)
Jo Ann Emerson (MO-08)
Thomas G. Tancredo (CO-06)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Tom Osborne (NE-03)
Mike Ross (AR-04)
Dennis R. Rehberg (MT-AL)
Jerry Lewis (CA-40)
Ken Calvert (CA-43)
Joel Hefley (CO-05)
Duncan Hunter (CA-52)
Wally Herger (CA-02)
Joe Skeen (NM-02)
Randy "Duke" Cunningham (CA-51)
John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN-02)
John T. Doolittle (CA-04)
Elton Gallagly (CA-23)
J.D. Hayworth (AZ-06)
Ric Keller (FL-08)
Kevin Brady (TX-08)