9th Cout On Roadless Area Rules (From Wildlands CPR)
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:05 pm
Roadless Areas Protected Nationwide!
By Sarah Peters
August 5, 2009
Email this blog entry
Printer friendly version
Big news today in the ever on-going debate over how the Forest Service should manage areas identified for protection in the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision re-instating the 2001 Rule nationwide (except for Idaho and the Tongass).
The opinion states:
The Forest Service’s use of a categorical exemption to repeal the nationwide protections of the Roadless Rule and to invite States to pursue varying rules for roadless area management as unreasonable. It was likewise unreasonable for the Forest Service to assert that the environment, listed species, and their critical habitats would be unaffected by this regulatory change.
We affirm the district court’s order permanently enjoining the implementation of the State Petitions Rule because the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act when it promulgated the State Petitions Rule. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Forest Service to comply with the Roadless Rule as a remedy for these procedural shortcomings.
Congratulations to everyone who has been diligently pursuing this outcome over the last four years or so. Great work!
By Sarah Peters
August 5, 2009
Email this blog entry
Printer friendly version
Big news today in the ever on-going debate over how the Forest Service should manage areas identified for protection in the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision re-instating the 2001 Rule nationwide (except for Idaho and the Tongass).
The opinion states:
The Forest Service’s use of a categorical exemption to repeal the nationwide protections of the Roadless Rule and to invite States to pursue varying rules for roadless area management as unreasonable. It was likewise unreasonable for the Forest Service to assert that the environment, listed species, and their critical habitats would be unaffected by this regulatory change.
We affirm the district court’s order permanently enjoining the implementation of the State Petitions Rule because the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act when it promulgated the State Petitions Rule. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Forest Service to comply with the Roadless Rule as a remedy for these procedural shortcomings.
Congratulations to everyone who has been diligently pursuing this outcome over the last four years or so. Great work!