Roadless Court Decision - Greens and Court Validate OHV Recreation

RDR (left), FS (center), The General (right) on Trail Planning Project Review

The Recreation HQ has received a number of private emails asking what it thinks about the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling regarding suits filed against the Clinton Roadless Rule.

BRC News Release on Court Ruling
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2011/10/24/recreation-groups-respond-roadless-rule-decision

AP Article on Roadless Ruling
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/21/nation/la-na-forest-roadless-20111022

HQ’s missive today is not an endorsement of the court’s decision that negatively restricts the agency’s ability to do resource management of federal timber in inventoried roadless areas.

Our view from a strictly trail-based recreation perspective is that the court decision validates the appropriateness of OHV recreation in IRAs. Unlike the early days of the roadless battle where you had some Forests closing jeep routes in IRAs because they interpreted the Clinton Roadless Rule as a closure directive, you now have green groups, FS, and the court supporting the designation of OHV routes in IRAs.

Blog on Green Groups Supporting OHV Routes in IRAs
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/08/green-groups-defend-ohv-trails-in.html


HQ believes the commitment of BRC and other OHV groups to challenge the Clinton Roadless Rule in numerous legal venues over the last 10 years has been of great value because those fights have resulted in the greens and courts validating and supporting the designation of OHV routes in IRAs.


HQ agrees with BRC’s hope that users and the Forest Service can now redirect efforts and energy from court battles to going out on the ground and doing post subpart B project level trail planning.

BRC Example of Recent Project Level Planning Trip on the Shasta Trinity NF
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Beegum_Project_20110001.pdf

Trail Planning in WA
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2011/10/19/washington---olympic-nf-hosts-public-meeting-regarding-orv-riding-in-calawah-watershed

HQ believes post subpart B project level trail planning is what users and the agency should be focused on. It will require a lot of hard work by both parties, but the end result will be worth it.

OHV Legal Fights in 2010

Over the course of the last several weeks, the Recreation HQ has received a lot of emails from riders who were shocked into the real world of OHV politics by the Carnegie saga.

Some of those OHVers have asked The General what he thinks are the top land-use challenges that off-roaders will face in 2010?

One thing I can tell you is that we will be facing a plethora of anti-OHV lawsuits that are either based on the Roadless Rule, the Travel Management Rule, and/or Water Quality. For almost 10 years, the BRC Legal Team (and partners) has been in various legal venues to challenge efforts by certain enviro groups to have the courts – in both the 9th and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals - validate the Roadless Rule as a tool to restrict or ban OHV use (mostly single-track dirt bike trails and motorized trails used by ATVs and Jeeps) on inventoried and uninventoried roadless areas on Forest Service lands.

Currently, the BRC legal team and clients are fighting efforts by the State of California to have courts set aside forest plans that don’t propose enough Wilderness areas or other land classifications where OHV use is prohibited.

See So Cal Roadless Issue (we are still in court on this case)
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1594

Regarding the 10th Circuit Roadless Case, BRC should have an update on its legal efforts later this week. The General is glad to see his good friends from the Mountain States Legal Foundation have joined the roadless fight. I believe various mining associations and the western business roundtable have also filed an amicus brief on this case.

See Article on MSLF joining roadless fight
http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_18cad187-2bc7-5795-9330-75eacba16d78.html

Some may ask what does the roadless issue have to do with OHV since those areas are “roadless?” The term roadless is an unfortunate and inaccurate term that has worked its way into the land use lexicon. Actually, most roadless areas have a lot of FS roads and legal OHV trails. Some of my favorite single-track motorcycle riding is in a roadless area at Downieville on the Tahoe National Forest.

Enviros have and will continue to try and use the roadless issue as a way to ban OHV use. A current real-time example is up on the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area

See my update on the Riley Ranch Issue in OR
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/12/coos-county-ohvers-face-day-of-infamy.html

The General and Recreation HQ wants to wish you all a Happy New Year and hope that you got some time to rest with your family over the holiday season as 2010 promises to be one of the most active and challenging time-periods in the battle for access to public lands.

Note: If you want to join BRC’s effort to protect OHV recreation not only in California but nationwide, consider going online today and become a member and/or make a donation at: https://www.sharetrails.org/secure/join_or_contribute/

If you want to send The General a snail mail note. the Recreation HQ address is:

Don Amador
Recreation HQ
555 Honey Lane
Oakley, CA 94561

Thanks for your service!!!

OHV Wars Hit Carnegie Park and the SF Bay Area

The recent turn of events regarding the court order to temporarily close Carnegie SVRA has been a clarion call for Bay Area off-roaders who did not think that the “OHV Wars” would touch down so close to home. That impression is based on the large number of emails and phone calls The General has received by riders – many of which were not aware of how the anti-OHV groups use (or misuse) the courts to enact their political agenda.

Read the Lawsuit
http://www.peer.org/docs/ca/09_17_9_California_Carnegie_SVRA.pdf

As you know, OHMVR has filed a STAY with the court to keep the park open. We should know the outcome of that STAY by late Friday. If the STAY is granted, the park would stay open while various management options are implemented regarding riders in the creek bed, soil erosion, etc.

If the STAY is not granted, OHMVR would file an appeal. Based on the outcome of that action and the negotiations between OHMVR and enviro attorneys, the park might have to close in the near future or mitigations might be agreed to by the various legal parties such as completely fencing off the creek, banning permitted events, longer wet weather closures, etc. or if those future talks were productive the park could stay open until the park receives a waiver or approval from the Water Control Board.

I know a lot of you are chomping at the bit and want to take immediate action to voice your outrage. I don’t blame you.

As a rider and voter you always have the right to call or write your elected representative and I encourage you to do that. However, I am waiting for the outcome of the stay before I initiate
an official action item such as a letter or phone call campaign. The General believes in targeting
our effort for maximum effect. Once the STAY issue is resolved, I will recommend to you the person or body (e.g. governor, state senate or senator, agency representative) that most needs to hear from you ASAP.

Also, once the status of the park is determined there are a number of effective options such as rallies, protests, bumper stickers, t-shirts, fundraisers, etc. that should be on the table for us to consider.

Many of you have asked the famous question…”Why don’t we sue the *$&&#s?” That question or statement while simple albeit appealing on the surface does not appreciate the complex field of battle that OHV now operates in. This case is complex because the Attorney General is Jerry Brown and it is his office that is defending state parks. What you don’t know is that his office often files these types of eco lawsuits against agencies that don’t propose to close enough OHV routes. In fact, BRC/Cal 4WD et al are in just such a case where Jerry Brown wants more Forest Service lands put off limits to OHV.

See Info on So Cal Forests Roadless Lawsuit (we are still in court on this case)
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1594

I know you want a formal action item immediately, but I ask your patience for the next day or so as the STAY issue plays out. As you are learning…not only are ALL land use decisions political decisions but most if not ALL court decisions are political decisions as well. The facts of the case, well reasoned arguments and/or solutions can be, and often are, overlooked by the court and a “Political Decision” is rendered.

Just ask the Timber Industry or Farmers in the Central Valley about political decisions made by the court to put them out of business. Be assured of one thing… OHV is on that same list of activities slated by hard core enviros for extinction. How we react and fight back will determine our future.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Thanks for your service!

Friday Update on Roadless Issue and OHV Access

The General has received a number of PMs from riders who want to know a little bit more about the roadless battle and how BRC’s legal effort got started and why we were concerned about access to trails and jeep roads in “roadless areas.”

********************************************

Photo at right is of designated OHV trail in an Eldorado NF "Roadless" Area.

*********************************************

The onus for our effort was based on the fact the Shasta-Trinity NF (circa 2000-2001) had actually decided not to reconstruct jeep trails in their roadless areas near McCloud.
*

*
See 2001 Article published by The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/1066/Court_questions_Clinton_roadless_rule.html

*

*

Again, riders and access interests should continue to monitor the roadless issue and advise BRC if trails or jeep roads are being excluded from designation based on a false interpretation of the Clinton Roadless Rule.

*

Green Groups Defend OHV Trails in Roadless Areas

With the “roadless” issue in the news today, The General wants to remind riders to be ever vigilant on your watch regarding the designation (or lack thereof) of OHV trails in roadless areas.

See LA Times Article with quote from BRC’s Attorney – Paul Turcke
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-roads6-2009aug06,0,1222397.story

BRC has long held and argued that the Clinton Roadless Rule was illegal. Those of us involved in the issue (myself since 1998) knew that no plan crafted in a DC smoke-filled room would past muster.

On behalf of the BRC, I had reminded many Forests (including our successful appeal on the Six Rivers NF) in the TMR process of the following facts:

The BlueRibbon Coalition believes that Region 5 and the Smith River NRA have improperly concluded that existing routes within “roadless areas” must be closed and/or not designated as a result of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This interpretation is contrary to the plain language of that Rule. In fact, the strongest proponents of the Roadless Rule have consistently pointed to the fact that the Rule preserves existing motorized access in defending the Rule as a necessary and balanced management tool.

Preservationist interests “defended” motorized access to roadless areas in their strong opposition to the intervention of access-advocacy interests in California ex rel Lockyer et al. v. U.S.D.A., Case No. 05-3508 (N.D.Cal.). That case, consolidated with a similar action brought by private groups led by The Wilderness Society (“TWS”) sought to challenge the 2005 State Petitions Rule. The California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, American Council of Snowmobile Associations and BlueRibbon Coalition moved to intervene. The preservationist plaintiffs opposed, arguing “the interests that the Off-Road Vehicle Groups assert in motorized recreation in roadless areas are not at stake in this action.” Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 79) at 7 Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 7, 2006) In reaching this conclusion, the TWS plaintiffs summarized language from the Rule and its associated planning documents, stating “[i]n sum, even if the Roadless Rule is reinstated by this Court as plaintiffs request, it will not prohibit a single person’s off-road vehicle use or close a single off-road vehicle trail as alleged by the Off-Road Vehicle Groups’ declarants.” Id. at 5. The TWS surreply clarifies and extends on these conclusions, again saying the “Roadless Rule does not close any existing vehicular routes (ORV or otherwise) in any National Forest roadless areas.” Plaintiffs’ Surreply in Opposition to Intervention (Doc. No. 100) at 1, Case Nos. 05-3508 and 05-4038 (N.D.Cal.)(March 24, 2006) . That document goes on to address specific routes of concern identified by BlueRibbon declarant Don Amador and says “[a]s to the two routes Mr. Amador might hypothetically use for ORV recreation … neither route is more than 50 inches wide, and therefore the Roadless Rule would not even apply to them.” Id. at 2.

Riders should support those Forests who have correctly interpreted the Clinton Roadless Rule as allowing for designated OHV trails in inventoried roadless areas. If local users spot a trail that has been excluded from designation based on the “roadless” issue, they should cite the above information and remind the Forest that green groups support OHV trails in roadless areas.

As Turcke stated in the LA article…The Roadless Saga Continues.

*