Bush administration lets roadless rules stand

“Wow, that's surprising. I'm stoked, but surprised at the same time. Thought Bush and the Logging industry were winning the battle on that one. (I keep close tabs on his logging plans for Sequoia and the rest of the Sierra Nevada.)”

“Really. I am told that one forester was talking about national forests in terms of biomass, and that was profoundly disturbing. I think the other term for biomass is firewood.”

“Well, yes and no. I'm an ecologist and we talk about total biomass in as it pertains to healthy, sustainable habitat. Hopefully the forester was thinking along the same lines...but chances are...”

“Cool.

I hate to be CYNICAL and all (haha), but I have to wonder if Bush is putting his Moderate mask back on in preparation for the 2004 elections. I believe the political consultants refer to it as 'innoculation'.


This is interesting... bipartison support to make the roadless rule permanent:

"Congressional supporters of the roadless rule plan legislation that would give the Clinton-era rule the force of law. Reps. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., are leading efforts in the House, while Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and John Warner, R-Va., are pushing the bill in the Senate."”

“duh, tilt...

you think?”

“I guess this shows how Clinton was a visionary genius who was way ahead of his time.”

“See what the reaction is when I tone down the discourse?

"duh"?

Not up to your usual standard, Chili.”

“Wow, peace in the middle east, an alignment with the greenies?

Not bad for a day's work.”

“When does he report back to the Alabama Air National Guard to finish his hitch?”

“This is why you will always be my bytch. You have no grasp of the world beyond your tiny sphere of existence.

By the way, sorry about that pumpkin incident.”

“Stop the cycle of abuse, bacpac.

Seek help.”

“I call it a pumpkin, you call it abuse.

You might be right this time.”

“Tilt you are not cynical. These are the last 2 paragraphs of the link:

Also Wednesday, new government rules now in place no longer require environmental studies before trees are logged or burned to prevent forest fires. The rules also limit appeals of such projects.
The goal is to speed the removal of trees and brush from 190 million acres of forests that have become overgrown and prone to major fires as result of a century of aggressive fire suppression.”

“This latest thing is just something Bush's PR guys can come back with when his anti-environment record is brought up. I can hear it now...

"B-But Bush reinstated the roadless rules..."”

“The improved economy, peace in the middle east, tax cuts and an unprecidented victory against Iraq will be devastated by this sham.”

“um... improved economy? Where do you live BP?”

“That's hilarious.”

“The Nasdaq hit a twelve month high last week.

The company I work for is above all previous year numbers.

I work for a company that works. If you want to post on the internet all day about how bad the economy is doing then maybe Bush is not the problem.

Ya think???”

“I'm self-employed, you nitwit.

You are someone else's wage-slave, LOL”

“A wage slave? No wonder your perspective is so tilted.

Too bad business is so bad for you.”

“alan greenspan just came out tuesday and said the economy has rebouonded significantly.....


how's the 'realdoll' sales goin tilt?”

“
Judge Who Ruled on Forests Is Faulted for Energy Holdings
By JENNIFER 8. LEE NY Times

Environmental advocacy groups filed an ethics complaint yesterday against a judge who struck down a nationwide land conservation rule last month. The groups say the judge, Clarence A. Brimmer of Federal District Court in Wyoming, had $400,000 to $1.1 million invested in the oil and gas industries, which stand to benefit from his ruling.

The judge's 2001 financial disclosure forms show that he held stock and royalty interests in 15 oil and gas companies, which account for about half the assets disclosed. The forms, which put assets into ranges of values, showed that the judge held $50,000 to $500,000 in stock in each of BP, Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco. He also received royalties from Merit Energy, Quintana Petroleum and Marathon Oil. While the numbers are not current, given the fluctuation in the stock market, he had the holdings at the time he began to preside over the case.

"A judge simply cannot rule in a case where he has a financial interest," said Douglas T. Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, which filed the complaint along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "For a judge to do so in this important a case will severely undermine public confidence in the judicial branch."

The judge issued a statement yesterday saying: "My financial holdings include certain gas and oil companies. None was a party to Wyoming v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. I also own some mineral interests, but am not aware of any that are located within a national forest. During the more than two years this matter has been pending in my court there have been thousands of pages of documents filed and numerous hearings conducted. The parties in the case have never raised any issue about the propriety of my involvement."
Mr. Kendall said, "The parties did not seek Judge Brimmer's recusal because they had no idea of his stock holdings; judicial disclosure forms are very hard to obtain."

Last month, Judge Brimmer struck down a rule that prohibited road building in areas that had neither been developed nor designated wilderness, commonly referred to as a "roadless rule." The rule, which was passed in the waning days of the Clinton administration, affects about 30 percent of the nation's forest land.

Judge Brimmer called such rules a "thinly veiled attempt to designate `wilderness areas.' " He also wrote that the rules, which took two years to develop and pass, were a "rush to give President Clinton lasting notoriety in the annals of environmentalism." The oil and gas industries, which had lobbied against the rules, said after the decision that it would open up billions of dollars worth of gas and oil in the West.

The roadless rule has been batted back and forth in the federal courts over the last two years. In 2001, an Idaho court issued a ban against the rule, which was later overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in California. Judge Brimmer's decision is at odds with that ruling, and environmental advocacy groups have appealed it to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.”

“what about the bush administration?”

“I tacked that onto an existing thread on the subject.”

“This is just a small example of the monumental amount of conflict of interest in politics today.”

“In a major, sweeping decision, a federal judge in California today
reinstated Clinton-era protections of 58.5 million acres of national
forests.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte of the U.S. District Court in San
Francisco sided with four Democratic attorneys general and 20
environmental groups in reinstating the Clinton rule and throwing out
the Bush administration's roadless petition plan. The Clinton rule
put 58.5 million acres of national forest off-limits to roadbuilding,
logging and other development.

Idaho Gov. Jim Risch (R) is scheduled to announce his state's
roadless petition today along with Agriculture Undersecretary Mark
Rey, but it is unclear how Laporte's ruling will play out.
"Defendants are enjoined from taking any further action contrary to
the Roadless Rule without undertaking environmental analysis
consistent with this opinion," Laporte said.

Full report:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/94621
last edited: 9/22/06 7:03:45 AM”

“LOL - Those California federal judges are such a joke to the rest of the nation. Aren't they like the most overturned courts in the nation by far?”

“HOORAY! One for the critters. Look when you clear cut sure it protects from fire spread, but did you ever stop to think how much work we and the other critters go into to redecorate? Probably the hardest thing is getting the trees to fall just the right way. Then whazoo in comes a clearing device, roads run through it...and we have to move and start all over again.”

“MISSOULA, Mont. - The Bush administration is preparing to ease the way for the nation's largest private landowner to convert hundreds of thousands of acres of mountain forestland to residential subdivisions.

The deal was struck behind closed doors between Mark E. Rey, the former timber lobbyist who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, and Plum Creek Timber Co., a former logging company turned real estate investment trust that is building homes. Plum Creek owns more than 8 million acres nationwide, including 1.2 million acres in the mountains of western Montana, where local officials were stunned and outraged at the deal.

"We have 40 years of Forest Service history that has been reversed in the last three months," said Pat O'Herren, an official in Missoula County, which is threatening to sue the Forest Service for forgoing environmental assessments and other procedures that would have given the public a voice in the matter.

snip

Under the new agreement, logging roads running into areas controlled by Plum Creek could be paved — and would thrum with the traffic of eight to 12 vehicle trips per day to and from each home, according to O'Herren. Critics say that will further imperil grizzly bears, lynxes and other endangered species in the Crown of the Continent ecosystem, a region of rugged peaks, glacier-carved valleys, and sparkling rivers and lakes that straddles the border between Montana and Canada — and that in parts remains as Lewis and Clark found it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25537068/”

“But......they own it, right? Or am I reading that wrong?”

“If they own it it is their right to do as they wish with it.

No one cares about property rights as long as it's someone else's property being phucked with.”

“Over the decades that the Forest Service enforced limits on logging roads, the county came to regard federal policy as a firebreak against development.

"All these years, we've been told those roads are not for residential use," said Jean Curtiss, who chairs the county commission. "These are logging roads. They're for timber management."”

“But these roads are the only way to get to this privately owned land, yes? There have always been easement rules in place haven't there? If you own land surrounded by public owned land you have the right to create a way to get to your land.”

“I wonder if they'll sell a bunch of lots to these yahoos... then come back and clearcut the rest,   LOL

Sorry, Dudes!


BTW, aren't these the same roads subsidised and maintained with your hard-earned taxes?   Nice early Christmas present for the developers ----”

“For decades, the company has held easements on national forest roads that allow it to haul timber, but the question is whether those easements automatically permit residential access as well. Montana counties and conservation groups say they don't.

Mark Rey, undersecretary of Agriculture and former timber company lobbyist, says otherwise. Just to be sure, federal lawyers have drafted a proposed amendment to "clarify" the easements, after nearly two years of private meetings with Plum Creek. The 11-page amendment states clearly that the company can use old logging roads in Montana for commercial, industrial and residential development.

The amendment would also provide a template for similar Forest Service road easements across the nation. Critics note that the proposal has gone forward without county involvement, without public comment, and without study of the possible environmental impacts of granting blanket residential access over hundreds of miles of forest roads. "This was all done behind closed doors," says Jean Curtiss, Missoula County commissioner. "But it's affecting all of us. Let's talk about what's the best thing for us as a whole, not just for Plum Creek."

In 1964, Congress passed the National Forest Roads and Trails Act, which authorized a system of roads with easements for "all purposes deemed necessary or desirable."

Those purposes were defined as timber, grazing, recreation, fish and wildlife, and watersheds; subdivisions were not on the list.


http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.PrintableArticle?article_id=17746
last edited: 7/05/08 7:38:27 PM”

“That's more than a little misleading because on the application where that passage is found it says,

1. The right to use the roads without cost for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by Grantor in connection with the protection and administration of Grantor's lands or resources, now or hereafter owned or controlled, provided that use for commercial hauling purposes, other than the removal of timber cut in construction or maintenance of the road or other occasional incidental use, shall be made only after arrangements have been made to pay or perform its pro-rata share of road maintenance.

It's saying that if the road is used for any commercial purposes besides the maintenance or removal of timber as it concerns the road then the owner has to share the cost of the road. The term for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable is clearly indicating there is no qualification needed. Why would it say "for ALL desirable purposes" if it was limited?

IMHO they made the right call.
last edited: 7/05/08 9:34:54 PM”

“Nigal - you're doing some selective reading, missing the key part of the phrase, "for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by grantor in connection with the protection and administration of Grantor's lands or resources..." Grantor is the federal government agency and there is a qualification about protection of the lands or resources.
last edited: 7/06/08 12:31:02 PM”

“This reinforces the point I was going to make which is that the issue of ownership rights is misleading, because in many cases people or businesses are buying up land or easements that have long been encumbered by regulation or contract on speculation that they can find some angle to change the status of the land.

I see it happen in my town, some developer will buy land that is zoned for single family homes and the price will reflect the zoning. Then they pull strings or get people riled up about property owners rights so they can convert the property to commercial zoning, or build condos there and make a killing.

Anyhow, its one thing when the government comes in and tells the land owner what they can and can't do with their land - with no compensation whatsoever - and another when somebody buys regulated land on speculation and tries to overturn the regulation.

In a lot of states, the approach has been to offer carrots to get land owners to agree to accept regulation. For example, no property tax or reduced property tax in exchange for accepting a zoning change.
last edited: 7/06/08 12:43:43 PM”

“Its simple. The USFS should take that 1.2 million acres in NW Montana even if it costs a few billion dollars, it would be worth it.

No more such places will ever be made.
last edited: 7/06/08 5:40:53 PM”

“Note: Any taking or fair market/willing seller purchase of that 1.2 million acres in Montana would only occur after November when the "Fox (Mark Rey and the current administration) is no longer in charge of the hen-house".

A large scale purchase of hundreds of thousands of acres of 'conservation lands' in South Florida costing billions of dollars appropriated just by the state of Florida was recently announced. It can happen.

Nearly wild property buffering prime grizzly habitat in the lower 48 states is rare and the last thing we needed is some rich person from his cabin driving dozens of miles over a paved road paid for by us just to buy a pack of cigarettes.”

“Exactly who is this largest private landowner anyway and how did they get the land in the first place? The history here has got to be long standing.”

“OK, let's see if I got this right then. If someone owns a piece of land that happens to be surrounded by federal land it's OK for me to get to the land but only if I'm chopping it down, digging it up or diverting water. But if I build houses then I'm not allowed to get to the land? Is this about right?

That's effed up. But it's a moot point isn't it? They ruled on it and the land owner won. Just as it should be.”

“No - you've got that wrong.

It depends upon the wording of the easement.”