TITLE

At a Dead End: The Need for Congressional Direction in the Roadless Area Management Debate

AUTHOR(S)
Voicu, Monica
PUB. DATE
May 2010
SOURCE
Ecology Law Quarterly;2010, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p487
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
In California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Ninth Circuit held that the Bush administration improperly promulgated the 2005 State Petitions Rule in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and reinstated the Clinton administration's 2001 Roadless Rule. The August 2009 ruling is only the latest decision in a nearly decade-long litigation battle over the fate of roadless areas. This battle began shortly after the Clinton administration promulgated the Roadless Rule, which sought to protect administratively 58.5 million acres of roadless lands from development. These roadless lands were initially identified as a result of the 1964 Wilderness Act, which directed the Forest Service to study such areas for potential inclusion into the wilderness system. This Note goes back to the root of the roadless area debate-the Wilderness Act itself-for insight into the issues surrounding roadless-area management. Roadless areas share many of the characteristics of wilderness, and often serve as precursors to wilderness designation. The value of roadless areas and their connection to wilderness have animated much of the modern struggle over roadless area management, including the Forest Service's roadless area reviews, the administrative rules promulgated by the Clinton and Bush administrations, and the ensuing litigation. California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the most recent decision concerning the Roadless Rule, signals a need for change. This Note argues that managing roadless areas through administrative rulemaking is not viable because it lacks the permanence necessary for lasting resource conservation. Additionally, it might conflict with the Wilderness Act and appears to be creating "de facto wilderness." In keeping with the Wilderness Act, Congress should provide more legislative guidance. It could codify the Roadless Rule into law, amend the Wilderness Act to provide for different levels of protection, or amend the National Forest Management Act to require the Forest Service to take roadless values into account.
ACCESSION #
52547438

 

Related Articles

  • News from the Circuits. Jordan III, William S. // Administrative & Regulatory Law News;Summer2013, Vol. 38 Issue 4, p28 

    This section offers administrative and regulatory news briefs as of July 1, 2013. Developments in the 2010 Iowa League of Cities' request for review of six U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informal issuances addressing the implementation of Clean Water Act regulations are discussed....

  • A CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS: IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REQUIRED? COLEMAN, MELE N. // Environmental Law (00462276);Fall2012, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p1339 

    Since 1996, the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals have been split over whether critical habitat designations require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Providing a fresh and objective perspective, this Comment argues that critical habitat designations should not require...

  • COOL lawsuit update.  // Wilson County News;11/19/2014, Vol. 41 Issue 47, p1D 

    The article reports that appellee's petitions for both a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc in the country of origin labeling (COOL) lawsuit was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

  • ESA Megasuit plaintiffs file amended complaint.  // Western Farm Press Exclusive Insight;9/ 3/2013, p4 

    The article reports on the decision of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Pesticide Action Network to file an amended complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for its failure to resolve the problem arising from the effects of pesticides on endangered species....

  • The Scared Bear: Imminence, Climate Change, and the Endangered Species Act. Welch, Sam // Ecology Law Quarterly;2012, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p675 

    The article discusses the U.S. District Court case In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing, for the District of Columbia. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was directed by the Court to avoid taking necessary actions to preserve the habitat of polar bear. The FWS interpretation of...

  • Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor and Varronia rupicola. Bean, Michael J. // Federal Register;5/21/2014, Vol. 79 Issue 98, p29150 

    A summary is presented of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior's proposed rule and reopening of comment period dated May 9, 2014 and entitled "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor and...

  • By way of the dodo?  // Pest Management Professional;Jun2011, Vol. 79 Issue 6, p38 

    The article focuses on the protection of endangered and threatened bird species following the extinction of the dodo bird (Raphus cucullatus). It states that the U.S. government has several programs to restore many of the endangered or threatened species. It mentions that the Migratory Bird...

  • USDA Animal Research Under Fire. Fox, Jeffrey L. // BioScience;Jan1985, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p6 

    Reports that federally funded experiments aimed at increasing livestock growth being conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture are being challenged in court. How the experiments involve moving growth hormone genes from one species into another; Details of the lawsuit filed by...

  • Black Farmers Mull Over Settlement. Morgan, Ken // New York Amsterdam News;12/10/98, Vol. 89 Issue 50, p6 

    Focuses on Afro-American farmers' plan to settle a lawsuit based on the United States Department of Agriculture's long-time discrimination against Afro-American farmers. Standards of eligibility to be plaintiffs; Two groups of plaintiffs.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics