|
THE
JUSTICE Department filed a brief Wednesday, stating its opposition to a
request by the state of Idaho and a logging company for an injunction to
delay the rule banning roads on 58.5 million acres of national forest.
The ban was to have gone into effect March 13, but President Bush
postponed it last month until May 12 so that the administration could
review it.
“We are opposing the preliminary injunction request based on our broad
discretion and authority to regulate national forest lands,” said
Justice Department spokeswoman Cristine Romano.
But the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, which is representing defendants
in the lawsuit, claimed the position was deceiving given what the brief
lacked: a vigorous defense of the ban on road building.
The administration did file its opposition to an injunction, acknowledged
Abigail Dillen, an attorney with the fund. “But then they went on to
say, ‘but we wouldn’t mind if you grant an injunction after this May
12 deadline’.”
Dillen highlighted a part of the Justice Department brief that notes the
court “could fashion an appropriate remedy — including a one to two
month stay of the effective date of the regulation — to preserve the
status quo for a brief additional period pending resolution of the
merits.”
|
The judge considering the lawsuit has set a March 30 hearing date to
weigh the request for an injunction.
Idaho alleges the Clinton “roadless” plan was inadequate under
the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements for research
and public comment.
A coalition of environmental groups filed to intervene in defense of
the U.S. Forest Service rule, arguing that the roadless areas in
Idaho protect blue-ribbon trout streams in the state and must be
preserved.
Another federal court is hearing similar lawsuits, one by the state
of Alaska and another by the Mountain States Legal Foundation.
The ban forbids the building of roads in 58.5 million acres of
national forests — a third of the total system — and allows
logging in those areas only in rare cases, such as to protect
endangered species or prevent catastrophic wildfires.
Environmentalists praised the rules as a way to protect the
nation’s forests and wildlife habitat against logging, mining,
energy drilling and developers. Opponents, including the timber
industry and some recreational groups, say the rules needlessly
fence off valuable resources.
Both sides also differ on how open the policy process was.
A spokesman for one recreational group, the BlueRibbon Coalition,
claimed Clinton officials first met in secret in 1997 with the
Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society and other environmental groups
to craft the policy.
“If all of us had been given a seat at Clinton’s roadless table
we might have been able to come up with a program that works for
everyone,” Don Amador said in an opinion piece sent to the media.
“Initiatives crafted in the dark of the forest serve neither the
public or our natural environment.”
Environmental groups counter that the Forest Service held more than
600 public meetings to draft the policy, and that the rule received
more public comments — 1.6 million letters, e-mail and faxes —
than any other federal rule in U.S. history.
The
Clinton administration published its final roadless rule in the
Federal Register on Jan. 12, only eight days before Clinton left
office. Then on Feb. 5, Bush delayed the rule’s implementation
date by two months, from March 13 to May 12.
Since the forest restrictions were published before Bush took
office, he cannot block or alter them without going through a new
rule-making process.
The
Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
|
|
