|
RECREATIONAL GROUPS ASSESS
NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOLLOWING DECISION SETTING
ASIDE STATE PETITIONS ROADLESS RULE
 San
Francisco, CA- Recreational interests are
responding to today's decision by U.S.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte in the Forest
Service "Roadless Rule" cases and are evaluating
new opportunities the ruling may present. Judge
Laporte's 53 page decision sets aside the 2005
State Petition Rule as unlawful. The decision
concludes the State Petition Rule, which
provided a redundant opportunity for State
Governors to petition the Forest Service on how
"roadless areas" in their state are managed,
violated the National Environmental Policy Act
and Endangered Species Act by failing to
sufficiently analyze the removal of any
protections provided by the prior 2001 Roadless
Rule. The California Association of 4 Wheel
Drive Clubs ("CA4WDC"), United Four Wheel Drive
Associations, the American Council of Snowmobile
Associations, and the BlueRibbon Coalition are
parties in the consolidated cases heard in the
U.S. Northern District of California.
"We are in the process of reviewing this
decision, and cannot address it in any detail at
this time, particularly while further
proceedings are pending," observed Paul Turcke,
an attorney representing the Recreational
Groups. "Of course the Court ruled against the
position we were supporting in these cases,"
stated Brian Hawthorne, BlueRibbon Coalition
Public Lands Director. "However, these are
complex issues and we believe the decision may
provide opportunities to preserve valuable
recreational access to roadless areas. We are
optimistic that there is nothing in the Court's
ruling to prevent the agencies from conducting
proper analyses and designation for travel of
historically-used routes through the ongoing
planning process," Hawthorne concluded.
The Court's decision sets aside the 2005 Rule
and reinstates the 2001 Roadless Rule, including
the Tongass (Alaska) National Forest amendment
which Plaintiffs in the cases had hoped to set
aside. However, the Court declined to issue
injunctive relief, directing the parties to
submit no later than October 4, 2006 an
agreement or separate proposals on the specific
wording of any injunction.
|
