Environment

SACRAMENTO - California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today joined ten states in announcing that Anheuser-Busch will discontinue its popular alcoholic energy drinks, including Tilt and Bud Extra, and will not produce any caffeinated alcohol beverages in the future.

“Anheuser-Busch, the largest brewing company in the United States, has taken an important action to protect young people from attractive alcohol advertising and marketing,” Attorney General Brown said. “Other major alcohol manufacturers should follow Anheuser-Busch’s lead and eliminate dangerous combinations of caffeine and alcohol from the marketplace.”

Alcoholic energy drinks are prepackaged beverages that combine alcohol and caffeine, guarana, taurine, ginseng and other ingredients associated with non-alcoholic energy drinks. Brown asserts that Anheuser-Busch marketed Bud Extra and Tilt in violation of state consumer protection statues by:

• Making misleading health-related statements about allegedly energizing effects of Bud Extra including increased strength and increased ability to stay up all night after drinking the products
• Failing to disclose its effects on consumers, and ignoring potential consequences of drinking alcoholic beverages that are combined with caffeine or other stimulants
• Directing advertisements of Tilt and Bud Extra to consumers under the age of 21

In November 2007, researchers at Wake Forest University of Medicine found that the combination of caffeine and alcohol sends mixed signals to the nervous system, causing the effect of a “wide awake drunk.” Students who consumed these energy drink cocktails were twice as likely to be involved in alcohol-related accidents and injuries than when drinking alcohol alone. The combination of alcohol and caffeine can be dangerous because individuals may not feel impaired even when blood alcohol levels are very high.

California, along with ten other states, asserted that Anheuser-Busch made misleading health-related statements about the energizing effects of its caffeinated alcohol beverages. Marketing that promoted the alleged energy component of the drinks made the drinks appealing to teens. The company advertised Bud Extra with taglines such as “You can sleep when you’re 30” and “Say hello to a night of fun” and utilized MySpace, YouTube, and other Internet sites popular with underage youth.

In addition, the packaging for many of the alcoholic energy drinks was similar to that for non-alcoholic energy drinks, leading to retailer and parent confusion.

Anheuser-Busch cooperated during the investigation and agreed to reformulate its products to exclude caffeine. As part of the agreement, Anheuser-Busch will discontinue two of its popular alcoholic energy drinks, Tilt and Bud Extra, and will not produce any caffeinated alcohol beverages in the future. Under the agreement the company will:

• Stop manufacturing and marketing all caffeinated alcoholic beverages, including Bud Extra and Tilt as currently formulated
• Reformulate its alcoholic energy drinks so that they do not contain caffeine or other stimulants that are metabolized as caffeine, such as Guarana
• Eliminate all references in advertising to caffeinated formulations and remove any reference to using Bud Extra and Tilt as mixers for other drinks.

Anheuser-Busch also agrees to immediately discontinue the current Tilt website www.tiltthenight.com without hyper linking or directing visitors to a new site. Any new Website may only to promote the reformulated Tilt without caffeine.

Other states which joined California in reaching an agreement with Anheuser-Busch include: Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York and Ohio. A copy of the multi-state agreement is attached.

For more information designed to help educate parents and the general public about alcoholic energy drinks please visit the Attorney General's Crime and Violence Prevention Center at: http://www.safestate.org/index.cfm?navId=1375

Today at 1:00 p.m., California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will accept an award in Los Angeles from the Coalition for Clean Air for “Leadership in Environmental Advocacy” and significant contributions to reducing California’s air pollution.

The Coalition for Clean Air is a statewide organization advocating for clean air in California. Since 1971, the coalition has worked to restore California’s air quality through outreach and education. The coalition spearheaded California’s original smog check program, won the first statewide ban on a toxic dry cleaning chemical and helped pass landmark global warming legislation in California.

Brown has a strong record as a pioneer on environmental issues. As governor, Brown expanded the use of wind, solar and geothermal power. And as Mayor of Oakland, Brown fought for sustainability, green construction and a commitment to renewable energy. As attorney general, Brown has fought vigorously to protect California’s air and natural resources from environmental degradation.

Last year, Brown reached a landmark settlement with San Bernardino County which established a greenhouse gas reduction plan that identifies sources of emissions and sets reduction targets. Brown also reached an agreement with ConocoPhillips which offsets greenhouse gases attributable to an oil refinery expansion in Contra Costa County. The Port of Los Angeles also reached an agreement with the attorney general which identifies and reduces greenhouse gas emissions generated from port operations. In May, Brown announced that the San Diego Airport is taking “a key leadership role” in the fight against global warming by agreeing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its major airport expansion.

Brown has also recently hosted climate change workshops in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Oakland, Monterey, and Visalia, challenging hundreds of local officials to take the lead in the fight against global warming. Brown has stressed the urgent need to combat climate disruption by setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. During Brown’s climate workshops, local government has learned how to model greenhouse gas emissions and to design emissions inventories that can improve local planning decisions.

The Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, requires California to cut greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020, but the rules and market mechanisms will not take effect until 2012. Meanwhile, local government will make hundreds, if not thousands, of planning decisions that will have decades-long implications.

To date, Attorney General Brown has submitted nearly thirty comment letters, under the California Environmental Quality Act, on local projects that have the potential to emit large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. The Act, signed into law by Governor Reagan in 1970, requires state and local agencies to evaluate significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts.

Attorney General Brown frequently updates the California Department of Justice Website to provide information on how to join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php

SACRAMENTO--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a $6 million settlement with MCM Construction, resolving allegations that the company was operating diesel cranes, pile drivers, and other portable engines without the required air district pollution permits.

“The company was operating construction equipment, without the necessary permits, which is potentially very damaging to the environment,” Attorney General Brown said. “Under today’s settlement the company will obtain the necessary permits and submit the equipment to careful inspection.”

Under California laws designed to protect air quality, construction companies must obtain a permit from local air pollution control districts before operating certain diesel engines over fifty horsepower. The California Attorney General’s Office alleged that MCM Construction operated dozens of engines at multiple locations without required permits on hundreds of days. Diesel exhaust contains carcinogens, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen.

The parties settled for $6 million in advance of trial, agreeing that MCM Construction will obtain necessary permits prior to operating any of its portable, diesel-burning equipment and will train its personnel to take precautions to protect rivers at bridge construction sites. The settlement, which is the largest ever environmental settlement involving portable engines, requires the company to pay $4 million in penalties and costs and an additional $2 million to replace some of its older engines with newer, cleaner-burning engines. The company will also adopt an internal environmental auditing process.

The Attorney General’s Office brought its legal action along with Mendocino County District Attorney Meredith Lintott, and Ventura County District Attorney Gregory D. Totten.

Mendocino District Attorney Meredith Lintott noted that her office was “extremely proud of the air district’s extraordinary proactive efforts to discover defendant MCM’s polluting conduct.”

“There is nothing more vital to the health and safety of Ventura County residents than having clean air to breathe,” said Ventura’s District Attorney, Gregory D. Totten. “This settlement helps rid our community of un-permitted high-polluting diesel engines, and is a step forward in preserving air quality for all Ventura County residents.”

In the past, MCM had been cited by local air district officials for not having necessary permits at dozens of prominent construction projects including the Noyo River Bridge in Fort Bragg, the Highway 101 Bridge over the Santa Clara River in Ventura County, and the Watt Avenue Bridge in Sacramento.

The state also alleged that MCM Construction damaged critical salmon spawning habitat while working at the Van Duzen River in Humboldt County. The company deposited debris, silt, and pollutants into the river, violations of the Clean Water Act.

The state’s complaint and the settlement document are attached.

SAN DIEGO--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that the San Diego Airport is taking “a key leadership role” in the fight against global warming by agreeing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its major airport expansion.

“Under this agreement, the San Diego airport will play a key leadership role in helping California meet its aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets,” said Attorney General Brown who entered into the agreement today. “This agreement is another example of how, in the absence of federal action, local government is leading the fight against global warming,” Brown added.

“This agreement underscores the Airport Authority’s commitment to sustainability in overseeing airport operations and capital developments at Lindbergh Field,” said Alan D. Bersin, Chairman of the Airport Authority Board. “And we’re proud to be one of the first major airports in the country to have adopted a comprehensive Sustainability Policy – in February of this year – which also reinforces our commitment to becoming a more sustainable organization.”

The San Diego Airport is the busiest single-runway airport in the nation. Passenger travel at the airport is expected to grow approximately 2.8% per year for the next 25 years. To accommodate this growth, the airport is planning to construct ten additional gates, new overnight jet parking, expanded taxiways and a proposed 5,000 space parking structure.

In an effort to reduce some of the emissions from this expansion, the airport has agreed to incorporate measures, such as green building certification and alternative energy airport shuttles, into its thirty-year master plan. Some of the measures that the airport will adopt include:

• Groundside power at new and refurbished gates, hangars and cargo facilities to allow airplanes on the ground to use electricity without having to run on-board engines which emit diesel particulate, NOx and greenhouse gases.
• Replacement of aircraft pushback tractors, upon the end of their useful life, with electric or alternative-fuel vehicles.
• Transition of airport shuttles to electric or alternative-fuel vehicles.
• Use of cool roofs, solar panels and cool pavement for new buildings and paved areas.
• Assurance that new terminal facilities will obtain a green building certification from a third party appraiser.

The airport will also inventory all greenhouse gas emissions attributable to aircraft ground movements and commit to recommending ways to reduce those emissions 20% by 2015.

Under federal law, only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration have authority to regulate the emissions from aircraft. In December, Brown filed a petition asking the EPA to regulate aircraft greenhouse gases but the agency has refused to take any action.

The Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, requires California to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, but the rules and market mechanisms will not take effect until 2012. Attorney General Brown has worked with local governments and businesses across California to help these entities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions thereby making it easier for the state to reach its reduction target.

Last year, Brown reached a landmark settlement with San Bernardino County which established a greenhouse gas reduction plan that identifies sources of emissions and sets reduction targets. Brown also reached an agreement with ConocoPhillips which offsets greenhouse gases attributable to an oil refinery expansion in Contra Costa County. The Port of Los Angeles also reached an agreement with the attorney general which identifies and reduces greenhouse gas emissions generated from port operations.

Attorney General Brown frequently updates the California Department of Justice Website to provide information that helps local agencies join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php

Brown’s Memorandum of Understanding with the San Diego Airport Authority is attached.

SACRAMENTO--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that Jiffy Lube International has improved its operations to ensure that oil and antifreeze is properly contained at its local oil change facilities.

“Some employees were not regularly inspecting their storage containers to prevent oil and antifreeze from spilling or leaking,” Attorney General Brown said. “Under today’s agreement, Jiffy Lube will launch a program to ensure that storage containers are in good working order to avoid spills and overflows.”

Brown joined eleven counties in announcing the statewide agreement with Jiffy Lube International, resolving allegations that some of its oil change centers did not follow precautions to protect the environment from oil and antifreeze spills.

Under the California Health and Safety Code, oil change facilities must use tanks and storage containers with two containment layers to prevent spills or leaks from reaching the environment. Employees must maintain the containers and regularly inspect for leaks or other problems.

During annual inspections, local compliance officers discovered that employees were not properly inspecting containers to ensure that both barriers in the receptacles could keep oil and antifreeze from leaking into the environment. Inspectors also found that employees were not regularly checking containers to ensure that the receptacles did not exceed their carrying capacity.

Under today’s agreement, Jiffy Lube will launch a training program for all employees to ensure compliance with state and local environmental laws. The company will also have a third-party consultant conduct audits to ensure compliance with environmental laws. The company will ensure that all facilities have to proper equipment for storing used and unused motor oil and antifreeze.

Any current Jiffy Lube-operated facility that does not have a container suitable for storage of used motor oil will stop collecting used motor oil until a suitable container is on site. The company will revoke any franchise agreement if there are three uncorrected violations of environmental regulations.

The agreement covers more than 300 Jiffy Lube locations across California.

Jiffy Lube cooperated with state inspectors by voluntarily disclosing voluminous records pertaining to the ownership and operation of Jiffy Lube oil change facilities in California. The company also agreed to pay $500,000 as civil penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees.

District Attorneys assisting in the investigation include: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Solano, Ventura. The Los Angeles City Attorney also joined today’s agreement.

The judgment, which becomes final pending Sacramento Superior Court approval, is attached.

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today attacked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s new fuel economy rules, calling them “a covert assault” on California’s landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas regulations.

“This fuel economy plan, while attractive on the surface, is a shameful and unlawful assault on California’s landmark vehicle emissions standards,” Attorney General Brown said.

Last year, the Bush administration had ordered a paltry one mile per gallon increase for light trucks from 22 to 23 miles per gallon by 2010, which Brown challenged in court, asserting that the plan failed to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. A 9th Circuit decision issued in November struck down the inadequate national standard and directed the federal government to come up with a new plan.

Today’s vehicle standard, an increase to 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, falls short of state efforts which curb greenhouse gas emissions directly and are estimated to be equivalent to 36 miles per gallon by 2016.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) required the Bush Administration to increase gas mileage standards. But today’s regulations, buried on page 378, there is an attempt--in violation of law--to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA and two district court opinions which affirm that gas mileage standards are separate from state greenhouse gas regulations.

Today’s regulations purport to preempt 'any state regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles...” This violates legal precedent which clearly established that pollution emissions from cars, including greenhouse gases, are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California, not NHTSA.

The preemption provisions clearly contradict language in the original EISA statue itself which states that nothing in the law, “supersedes, limits the authority provided or responsibility conferred by, or authorizes any violation of any provision of law (including a regulation), including any energy or environmental law or regulation.”

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency and California both have authority to regulate motor vehicle pollution, including greenhouse gases. Individuals states may then choose to adopt the California or federal standards. The Bush Administration argued that neither the EPA nor California had that authority, but it lost that argument last year when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases and that NHTSA’s mileage standard authority must be coordinated with greenhouse gas emissions controls under the Clean Air Act.

Two federal district courts, Vermont and the Eastern District of California, determined that California’s authority to control greenhouse gas emissions cannot be overruled by NHTSA.

California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by obtaining a waiver from EPA.

California is the world’s 12th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions and the state’s auto regulations are an important part of California’s strategy to fight global warming. The regulations would account for about 17 percent of the state’s goal, set under AB 32 the Global Warming Solutions Act, of reducing emissions 25 percent by 2020.

Seventeen other states have adopted or are poised to adopt California's landmark regulations: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington

Brown recently expanded the Attorney General’s Website to provide valuable and up-to-date information about how public officials, industry leaders, and private citizens can join the fight against global warming. For more information visit: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

The preemption provision, hidden on page 378, is attached.

WASHINGTON DC—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. went to federal court today to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release a court-mandated determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare. Such a determination of endangerment is the first step towards establishing federal controls on greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

“The EPA said it would take action to regulate greenhouse gases by the end of last year but then broke its word and ignored the Supreme Court’s mandate,” Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA has rejected the Supreme Court’s order, an action which is outrageous and unlawful. We’re taking the EPA to court to force it to do its job.”

In a writ of mandamus filed today in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Brown and seventeen other states and eleven national environmental groups asked for a court order that would force the EPA to release its determination of endangerment within sixty days.

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions after making a formal determination that such pollution threatens public health or welfare. The EPA itself described the Court’s mandate as follows: “...the EPA must determine...whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare.”

A recent investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed that the EPA had already made its endangerment determination--including an extensive scientific review--and sent it to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final approval. Brown called EPA’s inaction “a textbook case of unreasonable delay” because the agency already completed its endangerment determination last year and is simply refusing to release it publicly.

“It is makes absolutely no sense for the EPA to say it needs a year-long public comment period before it can obey the Supreme Court,” Brown said. “The EPA has finished its determination and Johnson should keep his promise by releasing the final version immediately.”

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said repeatedly, under oath, that he would comply with the Court’s mandate and issue a determination of endangerment by the end of 2007. Last week, Johnson broke that promise by extending the time period another twelve months until President Bush leaves office.

In February, Brown and seventeen other states asked the EPA why it was delaying in issuing its report. In response, Administrator Johnson backtracked on his earlier promise, stating “the Agency does not have a specific timeline for responding to the remand.” The EPA tried to explain its abrupt change of course by pointing to the recent enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a law which does not change EPA’s duties under the Supreme Court’s decision.

Brown said that the EPA cannot use the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which only improves fuel economy, as an excuse for ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA’s obligation to regulate such emissions is wholly independent from the mandate, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to promote energy efficiency.

Under Johnson, the EPA has also failed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, ocean-going vessels and non-road vehicles and engines. Brown sued the EPA in January after the agency broke forty years of precedent by rejecting California’s petition to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gases.

Since the beginning of the industrial era, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have reached their highest point in the last half-million years. Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently said “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Nineteen states and local governments joining California in filing today’s legal action include: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia, City of New York, Mayor and City Council for Baltimore.

National and international environmental groups also joining include: Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technological Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group

All of these parties were either petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA, or joined amicus briefs in support.

LOS ANGELES--Tomorrow, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will take legal action to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to obey last year’s Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants subject to regulation.

After the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision--exactly one year ago on April 2, 2007--the EPA promised to begin regulating greenhouse gases by issuing an official determination that such pollutants endanger public health or welfare.

The EPA said it would issue the determination of endangerment by the end of 2007 but then broke its promise last week by extending the time period another twelve months until President Bush is out of office.

A recent investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform exposed the fact that the EPA already completed its endangerment determination--including an extensive scientific review document--but is refusing to release the final document.

On a conference call tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Attorney General Brown will assert that the EPA’s willful rejection of the Supreme Court’s instruction is “outrageous and unlawful.” Brown will join dozens of states and national environmental groups in taking legal action to stop the EPA from continuing to ignore the Supreme Court.

WHAT:
Press conference call announcing new legal action in the Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA

WHO:
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Chief of Environmental Protection James Milkey
Sierra Club Chief Climate Counsel David Bookbinder
International Center for Technology Assessment Legal Director Joe Mendelson

WHEN:
10:00 a.m. Pacific Wednesday April 2, 2008

OAKLAND--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today met with more than two hundred local officials, challenging them to “take the lead” in the fight against global warming.

“Climate change threatens our way of life,' Attorney General Brown said. 'In the absence of national leadership, local government must take the lead in bringing about a low-carbon future.”

At the request of Attorney General Brown, scientists, local planners and elected officials convened at a one-day workshop at the State Office Building at 1515 Clay Street in downtown Oakland to discuss specific steps that can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California.

This is the first in a series of five local workshops that will take place in Sacramento, Visalia, Los Angeles and Monterey. Representatives of the Attorney General's Office and the Governor's Climate Action Team will brief local officials about how government at all levels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Brown addressed the local officials, stressing the urgent need to combat climate disruption by setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board, discussed local government’s key role California’s plan to fight global climate change.

During today's workshop, local government will learn how to model greenhouse gas emissions and to design emissions inventories that can improve local planning decisions. Other topics on the agenda included:

• How cities and counties should analyze the global warming-related impacts of planning and land use decisions
• Mitigation strategies local governments should employ to reduce emissions
• How cities and counties can efficiently analyze emissions

The Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, requires California to cut greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020, but the rules and market mechanisms will not take effect until 2012. Meanwhile, local government will make hundreds, if not thousands, of planning decisions that will have decades-long implications. Brown has called upon local officials to take action now to limit long-term greenhouse gas emissions.

To date, Attorney General Brown has submitted nearly thirty comment letters, under the California Environmental Quality Act, on local projects that have the potential to emit large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. The Act, signed into law by Governor Reagan in 1970, requires state and local agencies to evaluate significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts.

As a result of Brown’s comment letters, local governments are taking action to reduce greenhouse through planning and land use decisions. The City of Berkeley, for example, is preparing to fund solar projects with public monies and allow property owners to repay the city through property tax assessments.

Other greenhouse gas mitigation strategies being employed across California include:

• High-density developments that reduce vehicle trips and utilize public transit.
• Electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
• Regional transportation centers where various types of public transportation meet.
• Energy efficient design for buildings, appliances, lighting and office equipment.
• Solar panels, water reuse systems and on-site renewable energy production.
• Carbon emissions credit purchases that fund alternative energy projects.

In addition, over one hundred and twenty California cities have joined the Cool Cities campaign which commits the local jurisdictions to take concrete steps to fight global warming including the development of greenhouse gas emissions inventories.

In July 2007, Alameda County became one of twelve charter members of the Cool Counties initiative. Participating counties inventory their greenhouse gas emissions levels and create a plan to cut emissions 80% below current levels by 2050.

Attorney General Brown frequently updates the California Department of Justice Website to provide information that helps local agencies join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman today sued the United States Forest Service for adopting “illegal forest management plans” that permit road construction and oil drilling in California’s largest national forests.

“The United States Forest Service adopted illegal forest management plans that threaten California’s pristine national forests with road construction and oil drilling,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Forest Service should scrap these destructive forest plans and protect California’s natural areas as required by law.”

The Forest Service's plans allow road construction on more than 500,000 acres of roadless area within the Angeles, Los Padres, Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forest. California’s lawsuit alleges that the Forest Service's plans ignore California’s moratorium on road construction in pristine areas of the national forests.

The four national forests include over 3.5 million acres of federally-managed public land, from Big Sur to the Mexican border. The forests have great geologic and topographic diversity including chaparral, oak woodlands, savannas, deserts, alpine areas, and specialized habitat niches. The forests provide habitat for 31 threatened and endangered animals and 29 plants as well as 34 animal species and 134 plants recognized as sensitive.

The Los Padres National Forest, which is one of the state’s largest national forests, also provides habitat for the California Condor and is the site of the principal effort to bring this species back from the brink of extinction.

Brown charged the Forest Service with illegally violating the federal National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the agency to develop its forest plans in coordination with state laws and policies. California’s policy is that there should be a moratorium on any plan that could permit construction in roadless areas in national forests.

The attorney general is representing the People of California, the California Resources Agency and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to challenge the forest plans.

In 2005 and 2006, the Forest Service assured the Resources Agency, in writing, that it would not allow road construction on California’s roadless areas. Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman today criticized the Forest Service for not honoring this agreement.

“Time and again we have tried to hold the Forest Service to their word on the roadless policy. They have failed to live up to their promises,” Secretary Chrisman said.

“The Forest Service failed to even acknowledge state policy on roadless areas in national forests in California, let alone attempt to coordinate with those protections,” Brown asserts in the lawsuit.

The Forest Service also ignored public recommendations, including comments from qualified scientists, recommending that one million acres of the forest land be designated as wilderness. Instead the final plans only recommended protecting half that amount, without providing adequate scientific rationale for the reduction.

The plans also fail to properly evaluate the harm to the California Condor and its habitat that will be caused by oil and gas exploration and drilling. Specifically, the plans allow oil drilling on more than 52,000 acres in or adjacent to the Los Padres National Forest—areas which include critical habitat areas for the endangered California Condor.

Los Padres National Forest, which encompasses nearly 1.8 million acres that stretch 220 miles from north to south, is one of the state’s largest national forests. San Bernardino National Forest, which abuts the Inland Empire, is 665,700 acres. Angeles National Forest, near Los Angeles, is 663,000 acres. Cleveland National Forest contains 420,000 acres of natural space in Orange and San Diego Counties. Over twenty million Californians live within one hour’s drive of at least one of these four forests.

California’s lawsuit, filed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is attached.

# # #