HQ Missive on Wilderness Watch Lawsuit Filed to Stop Wilderness Lookout

Eco Humor is Good for the Soul

The Recreation HQ does not often find itself in agreement with eco-lawsuits filed by left-wing environmental groups but today is different. Some of you may have seen articles about a recent lawsuit filed against the Forest Service by the anti-OHV group – Wilderness Watch. This suit is in regards to reconstruction of the Green Mountain Lookout in Washington's Glacier Peak Wilderness Area.

The suit basically takes the agency to task for doing a construction project in a federally designated Wilderness area without first performing site-specific NEPA.

Article on Lawsuit
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_lookout_lawsuit.html

Also ck out the group’s blog below:

Wilderness Watch Blog on Suit
http://wildernesswatch.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/building-new-history-in-wilderness/

You might remember several months ago the BlueRibbon Coalition and clients filed a similar lawsuit (projects down without project level NEPA) against the Forest Service for the illegal ripping of roads without site-specific NEPA.

Blog on BRC Suit to Stop Illegal Road Ripping on Six Rivers NF
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/05/historic-lawsuit-filed-in-northern.html

Stipulation Signed on the Six Rivers Suit to Solve the Issue
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/12/ohv-christmas-miracle-case-study-in.html

Many of us in the OHV community are all too aware of the many NEPA procedures that are required for the agency to build even 10 feet of new trail. Yet, it seems that for “projects” deemed worthy by government elites (road ripping, new lookouts in Wilderness Areas, landing strips in the King Range NCA ) are given a free pass.

HQ commends Wilderness Watch for not being hypocrites. Unlike eco-groups who defended the Forest Service’s right to rip roads (without project level NEPA) in the middle of winter and dump silt into a Wild and Scenic River, WW called it like they saw it. If you have to do project level NEPA to build a trail or small OHV staging area, you should have do to the same for construction of a new lookout in a Wilderness Area.

Sometimes a bit of “eco-humor” is good for the soul.

After you quit laughing... the outrage is that WA State OHV Funds were granted (without NEPA - a big blunder) to fund this project:

See page 3 of NOVA Grant Program for Green Mountain Project
http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/rcfb/nova/NOVA2005FundedProjects.pdf

Thank You and Site Specific NEPA

The Recreation HQ wants to thank all the riders who donated to the Six Rivers Lawsuit yesterday. It is clear that you understand the importance of this case as it relates to the misuse of TMR to obliterate perfectly good access roads without a public process.

Several of you asked for an example of where a Forest does public scoping before it rips a road or does some other “ground disturbing” activity. Well, one such example is provided below where the Stanislaus NF sent out a public notice about an OHV Restoration Project.

Stanislaus NF Scoping Letter for OHV Restoration Project
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Stanislaus_Scoping_for_Decommissioning-2010.pdf


The issue in the Six Rivers Lawsuit is not about decommissioning unneeded roads or the restoration of routes that have serious environmental impacts. For years, BRC and other OHV groups have supported restoration projects that have been vetted and approved via a public process. In fact, the CA OHV program requires that NEPA be complete before any restoration (or in fact any FS project including building a staging area, etc.) project is grant funded.

I know the access community in the Smith River area would also support the decommissioning of unneeded roads if the Forest had vetted them with site specific NEPA.

Stay tuned as this legal issue works its way through the courts.

Thanks for your donations and support!!!
*

OHV Wars and ESA Reform

The Carnegie SVRA legal battle has shown off-roaders in the SF Bay Area how the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws can be misused by anti-OHV groups in efforts to close public lands to motorized recreation.

Many land-use newbies are not aware of the long-standing fight by groups such as the BRC and reform-minded legislators to address the fatal flaws in the ESA.

2005 Article on ESA Reform Effort
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=438&filter=media

A recent article published by The General’s good friends at the California Farm Bureau Federation is a good read regarding the insights of a District Court judge.

Feb. 24 Insights of a Federal Judge on the need for ESA reform
http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=1487&ck=6D3A1E06D6A06349436BC054313B648C

The General agrees with Judge Wanger that the best way to address court rulings on ESA cases is to have Congress deal with the issue. But as he points out – if Congress can’t decide when it is or is not in session…what hope to we have that it can address ESA reform?

Being an eternal optimist, The General believes that riders should have that in our collective bucket list of things to accomplish.

If you are not a member of BRC or at least some local or state OHV group, JOIN today and become part of the fight.

To JOIN or Donate to BRC go to:
https://www.sharetrails.org/secure/join_or_contribute/

Thanks for your service!

Pulling Culverts/Ripping Roads Requires Site Specific NEPA

On January 5, The Recreation HQ published a blog regarding a potential new direction for OHV litigation

Photo: A photo of a culvert that was pulled without site-specific NEPA/public involvement. Funny there is no outcry from eco-groups because in this case... the agency was "closing" a road to all public use. (click on photo to expand it)

See Jan 5 blog on New Direction for OHV Legal Efforts
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-direction-for-ohv-legal-interests.html

On that date, The General asked the troops to keep an eye open for aggressive and potentially illegal federal road decommission projects. The HQ is afraid that some agency units are using TMR (which only identifies the specific routes and seasons of use available for motorized travel) as the inappropriate planning document to authorize aggressive road decommissioning that includes the following ground-disturbing-activities (e.g. pulling culverts, ripping road beds, and recontouring the road prism, and digging tank traps).

Some federal units (see above photo) appear to be using NEPA exempt routine road maintenance authority as cover to go out and obliterate roads. As most of you should know by now, agency actions that include ground disturbing activities (such as pulling culverts and digging tank traps) require project level site-specific NEPA. Approval from USFWS and water boards are often needed as well. Those projects require public notice and involvement.

OHVers, equestrians, mountain-bikers, firefighters, woodcutters, and other access interests cannot stand by while federal agencies use TMR as the driving force to illegally decommission our roads and trails. Be sure and contact the Recreation HQ if you have an example of a road that was decommissioned without the proper NEPA document.

2010 may be the year we have to draw a legal line in the sand on this issue.

BRC/OHV Groups File Motion to Intervene in Eldorado Lawsuit

As BRC and its partners file a motion to intervene in the Eldorado lawsuit which was filed in the Fall of 2009 by anti-OHV groups, some of you may want to ask why do you have to file a motion to intervene v. just filing your legal intervention?

*

Photo: Single Track Trail on Eldorado NF
*
The answer is complex, but The General will try and do his best to explain. Historically, 9th District Courts have taken a position on several important points regarding OHV-related litigation. They often take the position that NEPA/APA was never created to protect the public interest as it relates to pro-OHV access and recreation. They also have created an extra legal hurdle that makes it hard for pro-OHV legal interests to intervene in lawsuits where OHV groups want to protect/defend FS and BLM recreational opportunities. Those “OHV legal positions” are not held by other federal court districts.

BRC News Release on Motion to Intervene in Eldorado Lawsuit
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=680&filter=media

CBD et al’s Lawsuit Against Eldorado Travel Plan
http://www.sierraconservation.org/Filed%20complaint%20Eldorado%20NF%20TMP%20case.pdf

________________________________________________________

*Note of interest for Carnegie folks.- Our good friend, Karen Schambach, who is at the center of the Carnegie lawsuit via her position at PEER, is also the kingpin for the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation which filed the Eldorado lawsuit to stop OHV recreation.

Karen at PEER
http://www.peer.org/about/staff.php

Karen at the Center
http://www.sierraconservation.org/who%20we%20are.htm

_____________________________________________________________

Although enviro groups often claim to be champions of fair and open debate, isn’t it funny that those same groups are trying to prevent BRC and its partners from filing our intervention on their Eldorado lawsuit? (that is why we had to file a motion to intervene)

To join BRC and/or make a donation to our legal effort against more land closures, you can go online at: (you can direct funds to general legal or specific cases)

https://www.sharetrails.org/secure/join_or_contribute/?c=1

Stay tuned as 2010 will be a very active legal year for OHV interests.

Thanks for your service!

New Direction for OHV Legal Interests in 2010?

The Carnegie saga woke up a lot of SF Bay Area off-roaders to the fact that motorized recreation is under a vicious and unrelenting assault by anti-OHV groups (that now include “fishing” organizations).

*

Photo: Federal Road Ripping During a Flood Event
*
It has also exposed the soft underbelly of some so-called environmental groups as having an agenda that has nothing to do with “protecting the environment” – but having everything to do with the exercise of political power over their adversaries. (e.g. timber, mining, OHV, ranching, developers, and farmers)

See my Blog on NIMBY War – this book confirms the political ambitions of enviro groups
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/12/book-review-nimby-wars-must-read-for.html

For several weeks, The General has stated he believes off-roaders will see an avalanche of anti-OHV lawsuits in 2010 and beyond based on junk science, crisis mongering, and non-substantive technical violations.

What you won’t see are those same environmental groups challenging aggressive TMR road decommissioning projects that do not have site-specific NEPA documents or worse yet are being worked on with heavy equipment during the wet season (yes, the same wet season when OHV use is either banned or severely restricted). It has been The General’s experience that enviros (and some agency staff) turn a blind-eye to resource impacts if the goal of the project level activity is to CLOSE an area or route to OHV use.

Recreation HQ believes that OHV legal interests should consider filing a lawsuit on federal travel planning projects where there are either gross or technical NEPA violations
or where there are sediment impacts that violate BMPs or other water quality regulations to important salmon (yes, real salmon habitat – not the Carnegie hoax fish habitat) fisheries.

The General is asking the troops to keep an eye open for examples that match the aforementioned scenario as depicted in today’s photograph.

Filing lawsuits against enviro groups or agency bureaucrats based on corruption, dishonesty, or bias - although sounding good - really don’t have much legal merit. However, environmental law suits based on NEPA, water quality, or ESA violations do have merit and maybe that is the type of suit OHV legal representatives should be looking for besides our standard intervention-type legal actions.

Feel free to leave a comment on this blog (you must be signed up as a follower to comment). And yes, your comments are important!

Thanks for your service!

*

The Public Process - Was Bruce Babbitt Right?

I was prompted into writing this blog today based on several recent calls from users in different states who wanted to know about “getting involved” in ongoing travel planning processes or addressing the implementation of unknown previous agency decisions.

While attending a land-use conference in the mid 1990s, I remember talking with then Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, about cumbersome bureaucratic planning efforts, where at the end of the discussion he basically said…”The [public] process is the product.”

At that time (and still today), I thought the end product of land use planning should be the construction of a trail or campground. Because of my work on numerous federal travel management planning efforts that have been completed or are currently underway, I now agree – in part - with Mr. Babbitt’s theory. Because if recreationists are not involved in the public process from the initial scoping to the final Record of Decision they will not have any standing for an appeal or worse yet… the agency won’t be able to address their concerns or consider proposals for a citizen’s alternative that could be developed for full analysis in the environmental document’s draft phase.

For many years, the BlueRibbon Coalition has written articles encouraging its members to get involved in the early stages of federal agency land use planning efforts. Riders have been asked to submit route networks that are important to them or areas of the unit they want managed for year-round use.

Just so off-roaders get a broad picture of how important it is for them to become involved “in the process” – I have linked to an article below that tells sportsmen how to become involved and that the true purpose of involvement is not so they can appeal. Rather, it allows the agency to use those public comments to make a better decision.

How Deer Hunters (and off-roaders as well) Can Become Involved in Federal Land Use Planning?
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/docs/sportsmanguide/deerbook3.pdf

Title 36 Part 215 – Public Involvement/Comments/Appeals in Land Use Planning
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=36:2.0.1.1.5&idno=36#36:2.0.1.1.5.0.1.13


Is public involvement a guarantee that the agency will make a decision in your favor? No it is not! However, The General can almost guarantee that if you are not at the table from the early public scoping period to the final decision advocating for your form of recreation - the agency’s final decision most likely will not be to your satisfaction.

Get involved early and often. Don’t give up. Once a final agency action is completed review it and then consider the next steps such as helping the agency implement the decision. Also, you can petition the agency to undergo a new planning effort to designate additional trails or change the vehicle use classification of existing routes. Help with volunteer projects – stay engaged… Your commitment for the next 10-20 years is needed.

At the end of the day (or trail) maybe Bruce Babbitt was right?

# # #

Action Alert - Send Letter to Save Johnson Valley OHV Area

BLUERIBBON COALITION ACTION ALERT!
SEND A LETTER TO HELP SAVE JOHNSON VALLEY
Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,
The Marine Base at Twentynine Palms is considering expanding because they claim to need more room for training purposes. The proposed expansion could functionally close most, if not all, of the Johnson Valley OHV Area. In order for the Marines to expand the base they need to go through a public process called the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In NEPA, it is very important that the OHV community submit letters during this scoping process requesting the Department of the Navy analyze impacts they feel would be made by the proposed project and to offer alternatives. Now is the time when we can have an impact on the proposed project. The deadline for submitting these comments is January 31, 2009.
During the fall, the BlueRibbon Coalition attended several OHV leadership meetings regarding the Johnson Valley issue. The suggested letter below is based on collaboration with, and input from, AMA D37, ORBA, CA4WDC, Partnership with Johnson Valley, Friends of Johnson Valley, and other groups, specialists, and interests. This letter includes a variety of scoping comments. Select the comments that convey the issues that are most important to you and your family. Include as many or as few as you feel necessary, and feel free to change the wording.
Thank you in advance for your support,Don AmadorWestern RepresentativeBlueRibbon Coalition
PS: BRC needs your support via membership and donations to help us continue our efforts to champion responsible OHV access to public lands. To sign up as a member or to make a donation, go to: https://www.sharetrails.org/secure/join_or_contribute/?c=1