LEGAL UPDATE - Minimization Does Not Mean Closure

Example of "Alpine-type" Single Track

 

The Recreation HQ believes two recent federal court decisions support the Forest Service’s authority to designate high-quality alpine-type motorized routes and single track trails despite legal and political objections by anti-access groups.

In early March 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the agency’s right to reopen the South Canyon Road (Jarbidge Road) to motorized use.  HQ believes the court recognized the unit’s efforts to “minimize” environmental impacts of the road in their planning documents.

Link to Jarbidge Decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/05/55449.htm

 

 

According to the article, the Ninth Circuit 3 judge panel further found that the plan the agency chose for the road, "incorporated several mitigating modifications." These included "minimizing the number of river crossings by heavy equipment during construction;" "clearly marking low-water crossings and posting them with 5 MPH speed limits;" and designing the new road not for passenger cars but four-wheel drive vehicles.

 

Last Friday, a federal court sided with pro-access groups regarding the designation of premium single-track trails found in in the Rico West Dolores area of the San Juan National Forest in Colorado.

 

BRC News Release on Rico West Court Decision

http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2013/03/25/recreation-enthusiasts-applaud-rico-west-dolores-decisions

 

HQ believes these court decisions reinforce the concept that minimization DOES NOT mean elimination. Instead, reasonable efforts to manage or “minimize” environmental or user conflicts in federal planning efforts can often be adopted to keep high quality alpine routes open for OHV use.

 

 

"Minimization" Chapters Needed in Federal Travel Plans

Yesterday, HQ posted an overview on the issue of “minimization” as addressed (or not addressed) in the recent court decision on the Stanislaus NF travel plan.   This rather new and apparent successful legal argument being used by environmental law firms should be a clarion wake-up call to federal agencies who are in the middle (or just getting started) of travel planning efforts.

For example,  there is a federal unit on the west coast that recently released a DEIS where there is only one or two sentences that loosely address the issue of minimizing motorized use impacts to the environment. 

In light of the many “minimization” lawsuits that have or will be filed, HQ believes that the Forest Service (and BLM for that matter) should devote an entire chapter to analysis of minimizing OHV impacts. 

That analysis should include any post Nixon-era land management decisions that already minimized OHV use or user conflicts per directives in his executive order 11644.  Other efforts such as signing that directs non-motorized users to non-motorized areas, etc. should be considered as well.

Nixon Executive Order 11644

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11644.html

 

If OHV and the agency does not get a handle on the minimization issue… HQ believes that OHV recreation could become so minimalized over the next 10-20 years that it could functionally cease to exist -- as we know it today -- on federal lands.

 

Stay tuned on this issue as the fight for OHV recreation continues in 2013.