Roadless Protections Stopped in their Tracks

by Steve Jones

Roadless Area in Wyoming Range Photo by John Sherman

On July 14th, Wyoming Federal District Judge Clarence Brimmer blocked national implementation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule, adopted during the Clinton Administration, would have protected more than 58 million acres of roadless public lands in the U.S. - including 3.24 million acres in Wyoming - from road-building.

This ruling disagreed on nearly every point with a previous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, a case originating in Idaho. Most notably, where Judge Brimmer held that the roadless rule was the result of a "rush to give President Clinton lasting notoriety in the annals of environmentalism," the Ninth Circuit had found that a 69-day public comment period, which was more than 30% longer than the legally mandated length, clearly met requirements for public comment. The roadless rule was promulgated after years of development, during which citizens were given numerous opportunities for public comment. More than 400 public meetings were held nationwide, including 16 in Wyoming, at which thousands of citizens provided detailed comments to administration officials.

Roadless areas in Wyoming's national forests play an important role in protecting wildlife habitat, watersheds and fisheries. Since 1978, when roadless areas were identified in the Forest Service's Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II, we have lost more than 680,000 acres of roadless areas to roading. The roadless rule would have stopped further losses of precious roadless areas, but with Judge Brimmer's ruling, the fate of the roadless rule is in doubt.

Judge Brimmer concluded that the rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act of 1964. He ruled that the U.S. Forest Service failed to analyze an adequate range of alternatives, failed to conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis and failed to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, among other things.

Furthermore, Judge Brimmer took the view that there is no distinction between roadless areas administratively protected by the roadless rule and wilderness areas protected under the Wilderness Act. He argued that since the Wilderness Act states that wilderness areas shall not be created except as provided for in the Wilderness Act, and that roadless areas were de facto wildernesses, the Wilderness Act therefore barred implementation of the roadless rule.

But this is erroneous. For example, oil and gas exploration and logging are allowed in roadless areas, as are snowmobiles, motorcycles and mountain bikes. The only activity uniformly prohibited in a roadless area is road building. While preserving an area's roadless character is a major protective measure, it falls far short of the protections afforded designated wilderness areas, which include a ban on all motorized vehicles, mountain bikes and other mechanized transportation.

WOC and seven other environmental groups have appealed Judge Brimmer's ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will decide whether it agrees with its colleagues in the Ninth Circuit, or with Judge Brimmer.