Apr. 5, 2001 - Colorado has joined two other states trying to overturn
former President Clinton's roadless initiative, which would bar most
logging, mining and energy exploration on 4.3 million acres of Colorado
national forest land, the state's top natural resources officer said.
The state has asked a federal judge in Boise to grant Idaho's request
for an injunction blocking the Roadless Area Conservation Initiative.
And Greg Walcher, director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources,
said the state is considering filing suit itself. Alaska already has
filed.
Environmentalists worry that the steady onslaught of lawsuits and
complaints from Western lawmakers will give the Bush administration
the political cover to gut the most sweeping conservation measure
of the past century.
Meanwhile in Washington, U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., kicked
off a congressional assault on the initiative in his House Forests
and Forest Health Subcommittee hearing. In a written statement he
complained that the rules, meant to protect 60 million acres nationwide,
would bar the expansion of three Western Slope coal mines.
In a March 28 brief supporting Idaho's request to delay the rules'
May 12 implementation date, Gov. Bill Owens said Colorado faced "irreparable
harm" because the roadless initiative could limit development
of school endowment lands and subject state property to increased
risk of wildfires. But environmental lawyers said the rules preserve
existing rights of access. They also pointed to Forest Service data
showing that few major wildfires start where there are no roads. Suzanne
Jones of the Wilderness Society dismissed the state's brief as "bunk".
Owens also said the Forest Service failed to follow established guidelines
during its review of the roadless rules' potential impact, and denied
Colorado meaningful input during the process - a claim that drew the
harshest criticism from conservation groups.
Steve Smith from the Sierra Club said Forest Service documents show
that more than 27,000 Colorado residents commented on the plan, with
supporters outnumbering opponents by a 12-1 ratio. During the rules'
three years of development, the Forest Service held 600 public meetings,
27 in Colorado, and fielded 1.6 million comments, the most ever submitted
on a rulemaking.
"I am disappointed and baffled by the governor's action,"
said Buena Vista businessman Dick Scar, a member of Republicans for
Environmental Protection. "Places without roads are a critical
but dwindling economic and environmental resource."
"Gov. Owens is sadly out of touch with Colorado voters,"
said Harlan Savage of American Lands Alliance.
On Wednesday, Walcher, the state's natural resources director, focused
on the claim that the Forest Service had violated the requirements
of the National Environmental Protection Act when drafting its environmental
impact statement. "Either (the National Environmental Protection
Act) applies to major federal management decisions or it doesn't,"
Walcher said. "They can't have it both ways." Walcher said
that while some national forest lands in Colorado do deserve additional
protection, the state feels the rules would hamper the activities
of oil and gas interests, ranchers, and ski resorts on lands that
don"t merit protection. "Our concern was none of the folks
who might know which was which had much of anything to do with this,"
he said. "This should have been approached forest by forest."
Douglas Honnold, an attorney with the Idaho Conservation League,
said federal agencies are not required to perform environmental reviews
to justify a decision to maintain the status quo on federal lands.
"They didn't have to do an environmental impact statement,"
Honnold said. "It's not required. They went the extra mile."
"This is as much or more about politics than it is about law,"
he added. "I think both the state of Idaho and now the state
of Colorado mean to stake out a political position, which is to ask
the Bush administration to undo the rule."
Environmentalists and Democrats in Congress worry that the suits
may give Bush's Justice Department an opportunity to offer nothing
more than a token defense of the rules, paving the way for a backroom
settlement negotiated between the initiative's most bitter foes and
government lawyers friendly to their cause.
At McInnis' hearing Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., accused
Bush's attorney general, John Ashcroft, of "taking a dive"
in the Idaho case by refusing to mount a defense. Ashcroft pledged
to defend the rules during his confirmation hearings, despite having
opposed them as a senator from Missouri.
Idaho Attorney General Alan Lance, testifying before McInnis' committee,
defended Ashcroft, his opponent in the case, saying Justice Department
lawyers "showed up and made their arguments against our position."
McInnis lashed out at the Clinton administration for "cramming
a one-size - fits-all" policy on the public, using an "illegal"
process that could wind up hurting federal conservation efforts by
engendering the mistrust of local governments.
But U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., defended the rule, saying that
it only makes sense to stop building roads in forests until the Forest
Service reduces the $8.4 billion maintenance backlog on existing roads.
