Daily Environment Report™
Source: Daily Environment Report: News Archive > 2011 > February > 02/02/2011 > News > Natural Resources: Federal Judge Upholds Idaho Roadless Rule, Concludes Acreage, Wilderness Not at Risk
Natural Resources
Federal Judge Upholds Idaho Roadless Rule, Concludes Acreage, Wilderness Not at Risk
MISSOULA, Mont.—A federal judge upheld Idaho's roadless rule, rejecting arguments by environmental advocates that the state's customized plan allowing logging and mining would harm endangered wildlife and wilderness (Jayne v. Rey, D. Idaho, No. 4:09-cv-15, 1/29/2011).
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho ruled Jan. 29 that Idaho's tailor-made management plan for 9.3 million acres of untouched backcountry—allowing commercial logging and phosphate mining in formerly protected national forests—passed muster under federal and state environmental laws.
The ruling comes amid a legal struggle by environmental advocates nationwide to preserve a 2001 Clinton administration policy that banned development on 58.5 million acres of roadless national forest land.
The Bush administration repealed the Clinton administration's rule in 2005, allowing states to develop their own management plans and petition the government for approval.
Idaho's plan, approved by the U.S. Forest Service in October 2008, involved opening some 5,700 acres of undeveloped backcountry for phosphate mining in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, as well as road-building and logging on more than 442,000 acres for firefighting efforts in “community protection zones” statewide (171 DEN A-2, 9/4/08).
Seeking to overturn the Idaho plan, a coalition of conservation groups, including the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition, sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior in January 2009, arguing that the plan would destroy pristine habitat and harm threatened and endangered species such as caribou and grizzly bears.
‘Big Setback.’
“We're extremely disappointed with the ruling,” Jessica Ruehrwein, the Sierra Club's regional representative in Idaho, told BNA.
“It does away with important, mandated protections for roadless areas, federal lands that belong to the public,” Ruehrwein said. “To not have a unified approach does not make sense.”
“This is a pretty big setback,” said Craig Gehrke, regional director of the Wilderness Society. Of immediate concern, he said, is the logging allowed in protection zones and the phosphate mining allowed in southeastern Idaho, where a number of abandoned phosphate mines are already designated superfund sites.
“The 2001 roadless rule was protecting those lands,” Gehrke said.
The plaintiffs in the case—including the Lands Council, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Idaho activist Gerald Jayne—were represented by Timothy J. Preso of Earthjustice in Bozeman, Mont. The plaintiffs said they would decide in coming days whether to file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Collaborative ‘Victory.’
Defendants hailed the ruling as a vindication of the collaborative process behind Idaho's roadless plan, a blueprint forged during 16 meetings with representatives from state and local governments, mining and beef trade groups, the Kootenai Tribe in Idaho, conservation groups, and the public between 2005 and 2006.
Sen. James Rische (R-Idaho), Idaho's governor during the time the plan was drafted, called the ruling “a victory.”
“This well-reasoned decision issued by Judge Winmill is a credit to all the Idahoans who put a great deal of time and effort into crafting the various protections for Idaho lands,” Rische announced in a statement.
The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and two conservation groups, Trout Unlimited and the Idaho Conservation League, sided with Idaho and the federal government in the lawsuit, which they joined as defendant intervenors.
The Idaho plan provided important flexibility to help manage fire-prone forests; boost rural economies; and protect wildlife and backcountry landscapes, the intervenors argued.
“What's extraordinarily cool about the Idaho roadless rule is that it will bring peace in the valley—peace in a state where the roadless rule has been most controversial,” Chris Wood, president and chief executive officer of Trout Unlimited, told BNA.
“The people who live closest to these lands are strongly in favor of this approach. It's great for the state, for fish and wildlife, and for hunting and fishing,” Wood said.
Five Themes
With more undeveloped backcountry than any other state outside of Alaska, Idaho has long been a battleground among competing interests alternately seeking to extract resources or preserve wilderness.
The Idaho solution involved “themed” categories for the state's 9.3 million roadless acres. Protections in the first three categories resembled those in the 2001 Clinton plan, banning road construction and timber cutting on more than 3 million acres.
The Wild Land Recreation category protected about 1.5 million acres; the Primitive category protected 1.7 million acres; and the Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance category protected 50,000 acres.
The state's last two categories, however, involved reduced protections for some 5.7 million acres.
Logging and road-building was allowed on 442,000 acres in the backcountry/restoration zone to “reduce the threat of wildfire” and “better protect vital community interests,” the rule stated.
Roads could also be built on 5,770 acres to access phosphate mines in the 400,000-acre general forest-rangeland-grassland zone.
Judge Agrees With FWS Assessment
Conservation groups told the court that, in promulgating Idaho's roadless rule, government agencies led by the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Wyoming Wilderness Act.
Idaho's plan “turned a blind eye” to risks that would irreparably harm pristine public lands, and did so “at every turn,” they argued.
“The Idaho Roadless Rule reflects a bargain that sacrificed 2001 Roadless Rule protections for a majority of irreplaceable roadless areas, many of which are coveted for development,” the plaintiffs asserted in court documents.
The FWS, however, concluded in a study that roadbuilding was “not reasonably certain” to harm grizzly bears, caribou, or six other species in the development areas that are federally protected under the Endangered Species Act.
In a 29-page ruling, Winmill agreed with the Fish and Wildlife Service assessment that roadbuilding presented no “immediate negative effects.”
Caribou, for example, would likely be protected by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, which is committed to maintaining old growth habitat, the court said.
“There is nothing in the record to cast doubt on these commitments,” Winmill wrote. “There is no compelling reason to require promises to be ‘binding’ or ‘guaranteed.’ ”
The Forest Service's avowals that logging would rise only “a modest amount” were similarly believable, the judge ruled.
Mitigation measures would contain any contamination from phosphate mining, the court asserted.
Neither the Forest Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act or NEPA, the judge concluded.
By Amy Linn
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho's decision in Jayne v. Rey is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=smiy-8dp2dp.
No comments:
Post a Comment