Showing posts with label subpart a lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subpart a lawsuits. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

UPDATE - Mendocino NF Subpart A Travel Management Meetings - Red Bluff is Tonight!

FS Road Spokesman, Ken Wysocki, Reviews Road Maint. Cost Chart

The Recreation HQ attended the Mendocino NF’s Subpart A Road meeting last night in Ukiah.  The Forest had prepared various “discussion stations” where agency specialists were available to review the road network and how they relate to resource, fire, and recreational activities.

Lone Motorcycle at the Ukiah Mendo Road Workshop

 HQ believes that access interests should come prepared for tonight’s meeting in Red Bluff with ideas and suggestions on how forest roads are used and/or could be used for forest health, resource management, and recreation.

Based on last night’s meeting, I suggest that you should be able to:

Highlight existing OHV recreational opportunities and how roads relate their use.

Identify ML 3 roads that could be reclassified as ML 2 roads for backcountry OHV touring and extended loop opportunities.

Identify ML1 roads (many are administratively closed to the public) that could provide looped OHV opportunity if they were open and managed as a motorized trail.

Identify ML 3 roads that should be designated as Mixed-Use to provide connectivity for non-street legal OHV recreation and touring opportunities.

Identify County road segments that could provide connectivity to the OHV trail network.   Work with county officials to have the county designate them as Combined Use (for paved sections) or Non-Highway (for native surfaced county roads) for use by green-sticker vehicles.  HQ believes that counties have an important role to play as a partner with users and the FS to create new OHV tourism opportunities.

Link to Meeting Information
 
The start/end time for the event is 3:30pm – 6:30pm the last meeting is listed below (however, I understand the Forest might hold another meeting in June)

May 14 - Lake Red Bluff Recreation Area, Camp Discovery Group Camp

Shannon Pozas, the Forest’s road engineer states, “ To be clear, this is not a proposal or decision document, but a transportation study that will help inform future road management planning and can serve as an additional resource in future multiple resource projects,” said Pozas.  “Similar to the MVUM, this document will continue to evolve and change over the years, with opportunities for interested public to share their thoughts and engage in the process.”

As you may know, Forest Service System Roads are the backbone of the Mendocino National Forest’s OHV program.  Many are managed as OHV trails for dirt-bike, ATV, SxS, and 4WD use.  Some roads are designated as “Mixed Use” which allows for use by non-street legal OHVs. Other roads provide connector routes between the trail systems and Ranger Districts.  Roads also provide general public access for hunting, firewood, and driving for pleasure.

HQ has been disappointed in the turnout so far by access interests.  The turnouts have been dismal.  HQ hopes folks will attend the meeting tonight and share their views with the agency. 

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

New FS Rule Green Lights Road Ripping



HQ is extremely concerned about the new proposed Forest Service rule that would allow categorical exclusions (Cat Ex) for the aggressive decommissioning (e.g. road ripping) of public routes.
Article on Proposed Rule to Rip Roads
http://politicalnews.me/?id=14873&keys=ENVIRONMENTAL-REVIEWS-RESTORATION-FOREST

BRC Media Release on Proposed Rule (good read and lots of info)
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2012/06/13/blueribbon-coalition-criticizes-us-forest-service-proposed-rule

According to one notorious anti-access champion as cited in an E &E article…”The new categorical exclusions appear less controversial than earlier proposals that sought to exempt certain tree removal projects from NEPA reviews, said Andy Stahl, executive director for the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.”  Hey Andy, how about cutting OHV some slack when it comes to designating historic "non-system" routes that have been used for decades and some even signed and maintained by the FS?

While some of the proposed cat ex’s for restoration work could be used to address OHV trail maintenance issues, HQ believes this new rule - with the usual lack of oversight from either the FS’s Washington Office or Regional Offices – basically gives the “green light” to Forests that are hell bent on the aggressive decommissioning of routes to go forth and rip.

One example of this is where the BRC et al filed a lawsuit which challenged the Smith River NRA’s road ripping (e.g. ground disturbing activities during the rainy season in the watershed of a wild and scenic river) without any NEPA process. 

BRC Lawsuit Challenging Road Ripping
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2010/05/18/county-and-recreation-groups-challenge-illegal-road-decommissioning-northern-califor

Link to lawsuit
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Turcke_Six_Rivers_Lawsuit_Orig_Filed_May2010.pdf

Another example of an overzealous unit when it comes to decommissioning of route is on the Gunnison NF in Colorado.

HQ blog with info on that Unit (letters, etc.)
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2011/09/road-ripping-hits-colorado-nf.html

HQ history of Road Ripping (letters and strategy of eco-groups)
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/05/road-ripping-is-coming-to-forest-near.html

The most recent example of a unit that focuses on road decommissioning is highlighted in BRC’s June 5 scoping comments on a proposed action that combines TMR with a large road ripping project.


BRC’s June 5, 2012 Scoping Comments on the Six Rivers NF/Smith River NRA Proposed Action
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Tyrone_EIS_scoping_comments_6-5-12.pdf
 
 Stay tuned on this latest version of the road ripping saga...









Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Court Says NO to Enviro Subpart A Claims on Eldorado Legal Case

The General on the Eldorado NF

The Recreation HQ wanted to share the good news about a court decision last week regarding the lawsuit filed by environmental groups against the Eldorado National Forest’s Travel Management Plan.


BRC May 31, 2011 News Release on Recent Court Decision
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=736&filter=media

Link to 82 Page Court Decision (a real good read)
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Eldorado_lawsuit_decision_may_2011.pdf

Some of you may remember that BRC and other recreation groups filed to intervene in the case in January 2010.

BRC January 2010 News Release with Motion to Intervene
http://www.sharetrails.org/releases/?story=680&filter=media

The recreation groups had concerns that environmentalists would use this case to get a court to link a dollar amount needed by the agency to maintain a “minimum” number of trail miles on the unit. Even though OHV groups did not like the 2008 Eldorado travel plan we wanted to end the endless planning process and move forward with good management programs.

HQ feels that environmental groups are filling an avalanche of Subpart A lawsuits throughout the West to force a number on the agency and/or to require the agency to undergo Subpart A planning to establish a “minimum” route network before doing the Subpart B trail planning.

By using an “oil change” analogy (page 36), HQ believes the court rejected that argument when it denied the plaintiffs (enviro groups) their Subpart A claims.

HQ believes CBD issued a less than accurate news release last week by intimating the court cast aside the 2008 travel plan.

CBD News Release
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/center/articles/2011/eldorado-05-27-2011.html

In fact, no remedy has been determined and the decision has asked the parties to address how much of a "remedy" is warranted for technical violations involving such small areas. HQ, on counsel's advice, prefers to leave it at that. We believe it unwise to characterize a court decision that has not yet been made.

# # #

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Green Lust For Closures Exposed in new Subpart A Lawsuit filed in CO

As the green’s continue to quench their thirst (or lust) for road and trail closures throughout the West by filing a flurry of “Subpart A” lawsuits in ID, CA, and NV, the HQ was not surprised today when it read about the enviros filing yet another Subpart A lawsuit against the Pike-San Isabel National Forest in Colorado.


Feb. 1 Article on New Subpart A Lawsuit Filed in CO
http://coloradoindependent.com/73649/lawsuit-accuses-forest-service-of-ducking-its-own-rules-on-off-road-vehicles-use?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

Copy of Complaint filed in CO (go to page 27 - #78 where it talks about TMR "minimization criteiria" which is code for linking funding to road and trail miles)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47848150/National-Forest-Roads-Lawsuit

For those if you who follow blogs at the Recreation HQ, this issue is nothing new. In fact, HQ has a rather impressive archive of the new Subpart A legal fights.

Subpart A Lawsuit Filed in NV
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-subpart-lawsuit-filed-against.html

Subpart A Lawsuit Filed in CA and the Green’s Lust for Closures
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-green-subpart-lawsuit-shows-lust.html

OHV Interests have intervened in the CA case as outlined on page 20 in the Jan. 2011 Issue of the online BRC Magazine. The was no financial support from OHV interests in ID to intervene in that Subpart A case… we can’t let that happen anywhere else.

BRC Jan. 2011 Magazine
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/issues/january2011/pdf/BRM_January2011-LowQuality.pdf

Legal Update on Stanislaus Subpart A Lawsuit:

Stanislaus TMR Suit (U.S. Eastern District of
California). Recall BlueRibbon and other multiple-use
interests including the California Association of 4
Wheel Drive Clubs, Modesto Dirt Riders, Modesto
Houndsmen, District 36 Motorcycle Sports
Committee and CORVA moved to intervene. This
case involves a challenge to the Stanislaus National
Forest Travel Management Plan, primarily raising the
“subpart A” issue suddenly popular in the preservation
community. The parties successfully reached a
stipulation on the motion, allowing the Recreation
Groups into the case under the same basic terms as in
the Eldorado litigation, which is also pending in the
Eastern District of California. The case is on a
relatively quick schedule, with briefing to begin in
February, conclude on March 20, and oral argument
already set for March 27, 2011.


BRC is working with NV recreation interests to see if they will support an intervention in the Bridgeport lawsuit. HQ expects that OHV interests will have to intervene in the CO case as well. This is important stuff folks, as the greens continue to shop for a court that will link the miles of roads/trails that the public can use to funds appropriated by Congress with no consideration for the needs of the public or the resource.