Pirate 4x4 banner

Roadless Rule

773 views 5 replies 3 participants last post by  chartdog 
#1 ·
Here's the Governator's stance on the Roadless Rule revisions allowed by Bush's modifications to the Clinton-era policy:

Consistent with his strong commitment to protecting California’s environment, Gov. Schwarzenegger today filed a petition with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture beginning the process to permanently protect 21 percent of California’s 18 national forests. Specifically, his petition would keep 4.4 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas off limits to any further development.

“Preserving and protecting California’s environment for future generations is a top priority for my administration,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “Today, we are taking action to keep our pristine forests roadless and in their natural state. It is critical that we safeguard these areas. They are home to plants and animals at risk of extinction, provide incredible recreation and are the source of drinking water for millions of Californians.”

The Governor announced the petition at a press conference at the Capitol. Joining the Governor were local and environmental leaders including: Carl Zichella, Regional Staff Director for the Sierra Club; Sam Davidson, Trout Unlimited; Dan Jacobson, Legislative Director for Environment California and Mary Wells, Executive Director of California Wilderness Coalition and Chair of the California Wild Heritage Campaign.

In conjunction with the Governor’s petition, the Resources Agency is appealing the four Southern California forest plans concurrent with the filing of the Governor’s roadless petition. These plans permit some road building in Inventoried Roadless Areas and are inconsistent with ongoing agreements between the state and federal government over how these lands should be managed. In its appeals, the administration is requesting that the U.S. Forest Service revise these plans to make them consistent with the management requirements in the Governor’s roadless petition.

The Governor’s roadless petition is the formal document that follows through on his commitment in May 2005 that “roadless areas in California will remain roadless.” The thirteen page petition outlines specific policies to keep roadless areas in their natural state for future generations.

In May 2005, the federal government repealed the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which protected these areas. In its place, the federal government established a new rule under which states could petition the federal government for state-specific rules.

If approved by the federal government, the Governor’s petition will permanently protect forest lands by preventing the building of all new roads, except for those needed for public health or safety purposes such as forest fire prevention. Exceptions will also be made to fulfill obligations for existing leases or rights, with the understanding that land will be returned to its natural state after the need for the road has been fulfilled.

“This Roadless Plan is fitting for a state that is the birthplace of the conservation movement,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “It will honor our environmental heritage, preserve our resources, protect our forests and leave the people of California an unmatched natural inheritance.”
 
See less See more
#2 ·
At first read this did not sound good. However, according to an article in my local paper today (discussing this same political event) it may not be so bad.

Under the Clinton "Roadless Rule" California would have lost almost 60 million acres to closure. Arnold's petition is based on Bush's over turning of Clinton's rule (and then leaving it to local governors) and seems to be asking that only 4.4 million acres be "protected".

Assuming that the areas are "inventoried" and are actually now "roadless" (not Clinton's definition but the correct original definition) I guess it may not hurt us.

I know that Arnold is doing this now due to the up coming election and he needs to be seen as a bit green in this generally democratic state. I hope that is all it is......
 
#3 ·
BlueRibbon Coalition, ORBA and others are meeting with the gov'ner's staff on this. So far we're being lead to belive they are not after our motors in this effort as much as it might seem from the outset.

This is where being members of everthing is important so we have the funds (dues) to track and tackle these kinds of things.

If I hear anything else, I'll sure post up.
I posted on my web site a BRC press release about this. Check out What's New on: http://www.delalbright.com/

Del
 
#4 ·
Del, once these areas are designated "Roadless" doesn't that take us one step closer to a wilderness designation?

Jeepndel said:
BlueRibbon Coalition, ORBA and others are meeting with the gov'ner's staff on this. So far we're being lead to belive they are not after our motors in this effort as much as it might seem from the outset.

This is where being members of everthing is important so we have the funds (dues) to track and tackle these kinds of things.

If I hear anything else, I'll sure post up.
I posted on my web site a BRC press release about this. Check out What's New on: http://www.delalbright.com/

Del
 
#5 ·
Roadless does not mean roadless

Boy, I was hoping I did not have to tackle this one. Roadless...

First, it does mean roadless. How's that. :)
I'm being cute ('cause I don't want to cry), but truthfully, Roadless areas are not roadless.

Roadless means this (I took this from my own web site)
CLINTON-GORE ROADLESS INITIATIVE

LOCAL PLANNING PER NEW STACKED-DECK PROCESS
MANAGEMENT OF ROADLESS AREAS EMPHASIZES RESOURCE PROTECTION
PROVIDES FOR FULL RANGE OF RECREATION USES WITHIN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION CONSTRAINTS
REINFORCES THE ELIMINATION OF ROAD MAINTENANCE/CONSTRUCTION SPELLED OUT IN ROAD RULE

Go here to read more about Roadless: http://www.delalbright.com/Articles/roadless.htm

No, it does mean Wilderness necessarily at all. Resource protection, yes. But does not have to be Wilderness.
Del
 
#6 ·
IIRC, Clinton's crime was in his interpretation of "Roadless".

Previous law said that in order to be considered for "Wilderness" an area had to be "roadless" (among other things) and this meant that there had never been any type of road or vehicle trail there before. In other words, no indication that anyone had driven there on any level of regular or occasional basis.

What Clinton did was to expand that definition to include anything that was not regularly maintained, meaning many jeep trails.

If I have this correct and if Arnold is applying the true rule of roadless then nothing we drive on today should be at risk.

I'm sure Del is right in that just because the "roadless rule" came from wilderness law, it does not mean that the current "protection" has anything to do with establishing more "wilderness".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top