What Schwarzenegger Didn’t Get Trying to Work Cooperatively with the Bush Administration on the “Roadless Rule” Protecting California’s Forests and Wildlands

“The U.S. Forest Service additionally received comments via fax, mail, and electronic mail. By the close of the comment period, the agency had received more than one million public comments on the 2001 Roadless Rule. During the public comment period Californians overwhelmingly supported protection of IRAs. More than 140,000 Californians filed comments with the U.S. Forest Service, of which approximately 136,000 supported full protection of roadless areas in California’s national forests.

“Roadless areas are typically characterized by high quality and undisturbed water, air and soil upon which humans, flora, and fauna depend. Ecological diversity abounds and flourishes in roadless areas as the absence of roads and road-related disturbances allows species to thrive. High quality water flowing from roadless lands supplies drinking water and reduces water filtration costs for dozens of communities throughout the state. Research shows that forests play a critical role in safeguarding streams from contamination by processing organic matter and pollutants. Air and water filtration, climate regulation, maintenance of biodiversity, and scenic beauty are just a few of the benefits provided by protecting our national forests.

“In the coming years, California will face the challenge of dramatic population growth that is expected to add 12 million people to the state by 2030. Accompanying that population growth will be tremendous pressure to encroach upon undeveloped lands. Once those lands are gone, they can’t be reclaimed. Therefore, California is at a critical juncture and it is imperative that we act swiftly and decisively in order to permanently preserve roadless areas before it is too late.”

It should be noted that Levine’s AB 715 of 2005, which would have prohibited the use of state funds to cooperate with any federal plan that was inconsistent with the protections provided under the Roadless Rule was defeated with the unanimous opposition of Assembly and Senate Republicans and a handful of Democrats. The Governor did not lift a finger to help this measure pass.

The Governor’s letter from Friday starts out:

“Protecting California's world-renowned forests and wildland areas has been a priority of my administration from my very first day in office. For almost three years, California has been operating under the assumption that our recommendations and on-the-ground expertise on determining roadless areas within our state boundaries would be fully considered and adopted. Disappointingly, the Forest Service has decided otherwise.”

However, as we pointed out last year, in 2004, Schwarzenegger said he supported Bush’s rollback of the roadless rule and that he would not file a petition to oppose the rollback. According to the Los Angeles Times on November 17, 2004, “that means California's roadless acreage would be managed according to the individual forest plans that governed the areas prior to the Clinton decree.”

On July 12, 2006, the Times reported that:

“Schwarzenegger declined to join California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and officials of five other states in suing the Bush administration over ending the ban on development in roadless areas.

“California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and officials of five other states have sued the Bush administration over ending the ban on development in roadless areas. Schwarzenegger declined to join them, preferring to work with federal officials.

"Lockyer spokeswoman Teresa Schilling said the attorney general's office would continue with its lawsuit.

"There is no guarantee the Bush administration will approve the state's plan or any other state's plan," Schilling said”.

From the tenor of Schwarzenegger’s Friday letter, he should regret his decisions earlier in his administration. The rest of the Governor’s letter is below:

“We have worked to keep unnecessary and damaging roadways out of four Southern California forests. With your recent denial of our appeals, the Forest Service has completely ignored its own written assurances that prohibit building roads in roadless areas, and has completely disregarded the good faith work we have done jointly for many years. Also troubling is that these written assurances provided to us by Forest Service officials were included as part of our appeal, yet any reference to these written assurances is wholly absent in the Forest Service denials. As a result of the failure to recognize our desire to protect our forests and wildlands, I have directed the California Resources Agency to formally contest this poorly crafted decision.

“Between January 2005 and April 2006, California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman exchanged letters with federal regional foresters in which both foresters assured the Secretary that forest plans would be issued so that roads were only built under very narrow and specific circumstances. This standard was the basis for my development of a California-specific rule. Unfortunately, forest management plans issued later in April 2006 envisioned the building of roads in four Southern California forests. I've enclosed the letters exchanged between Secretary Chrisman and the two regional foresters so that you may see these inconsistencies yourself.

“On July 13, 2006, the Resources Agency appealed to the Forest Service, contending that its forest management plans for the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests do not reflect commitments made to preserve the roadless characteristics of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). Also, the Resources Agency held that the plans failed to consider appropriate mapping standards under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and National Forests Management Act (NFMA) for all official and unofficial routes in the IRAs.

“The Forest Service had informed the Resources Agency that both official and unofficial national forest system routes would be present in Inventoried Roadless Areas designated "Back Country," "Back Country Motorized Use Restricted" and "Developed Area Interface." Yet it failed to include any such information in its management plans. Furthermore, Forest Service staff has contradicted previous statements made by the regional forester, saying that projects are being considered in Inventoried Roadless Areas that may require roads. Unfortunately, these projects remain unidentified in the land management plans.

“The July 2006 Resources Agency appeal asked the Forest Service to honor its commitment and ensure that California's forests remain protected from day-to-day Forest Service decisions or the uncertainty of a national roadless rule that is now threatened by litigation. Your recent denial is unacceptable and places the protection of valuable land in greater jeopardy. Frankly, it is not too much to ask for the Forest Service to do the right thing and live up to its own assurances. Please take the necessary action to ensure that California's forests are safeguarded for generations to come and resolve this important issue before any more time and resources are expended. The people of California deserve nothing less.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger