OHV Gavel of Justice - New 9th Circuit Memo on Minimization

The Recreation HQ has been monitoring the issue of “minimization” for the last several years as that term applies to route designation on federal lands.   Anti-access groups have tried to reinterpret that term and the impliedly necessary analysis, and have unfortunately had some success in U.S. district courts.  These victories have been predictably used in an effort to bully the agencies into dramatically reducing roads and trails available for motorized use.

 

The minimization issue was addressed in a recent memorandum from the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in what HQ hopes marks the beginning of a positive trend for access interests on the topic.  That memorandum rejected an appeal filed by The Wilderness Society that asked the 9^th to overturn a District of Arizona decision upholding route designation by BLM land management plans for the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs National Monument.

 

Link to 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals Memorandum on Minimization

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2013/05/28/11-17482.pdf

 

The 9^th found the minimization criteria does not require the agency to minimize impacts on a route-by-route basis.  In the addition, the 9^th agreed with the district court that the BLM performed a sufficiently detailed analysis to fulfill any obligations under the minimization criteria.

 

HQ hopes this memorandum, when combined with other recent federal court decisions, begins to lay the legal and administrative framework for NEPA travel planning efforts to fulfill the minimization criteria without unrealistic agency burdens and inappropriate pressure for the unwarranted closure of important access and recreation motorized routes.

 

By including a chapter in the planning document that identifies how the agency is specifically addressing the minimization criteria, HQ believes the agency can better defend the project against closure oriented lawsuits filed by anti-access groups.

 

# # #

 

Recreationists/Loggers File Brief with Supreme Court

HQ wants to commend the joint effort by BRC, Cal4WD, and our good friends at the American Forest Resource Council for filing an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Clinton-Gore Roadless Rule.

BRC News Release with Link to Friend of the Court Filing (link to brief included in news release)
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2012/06/19/recreationists-join-effort-bring-roadless-rule-high-court

As many of you know, BRC and partners have been engaged in the ongoing “Roadless Legal” fight since 2001.  For a quick overview of our fight since 2001…please click on the blog link below:

HQ Blog on 12 year fight on roadless issue

http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/01/roadless-legal-update-new-brief-filed.html

HQ wants to thank all of you who have continued to support our efforts to fight against unreasonable politically motivated regulations that have nothing to do with management of our natural resources.

A California Native Sends Letter to Budget Committee to Protect the "Trust" in the OHV Trust Fund

The Recreation HQ wants to thank all the OHVers (and even those few from the environmental community) who have already sent in letters and/or made phone calls to state government officials urging them not to raid the OHV Trust Fund.


HQ also wants to thank all the OHV groups such as AMA, D36, BRC, ROC, ARRA, CORVA, CAL4, D37 and many others who either sent in letters on company letterhead, posted alerts, and/or attended hearings.

As the Budget Conference Committee meets over the next few days, HQ believes it is important now for you to send in your personal letter on this subject NOW.

Don Amador, as a California Native, submitted the letter below this a.m. to the committee members and also sent it to his own representatives. Keep those letters coming in. I believe they have already made a difference and if the OHV Program survives it will the result of YOUR involvement.

LETTER SENT TODAY BY DON AMADOR
***************************************************************

February 25, 2011


Budget Conference Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 92449

RE: Don’t Betray the “Trust” on the OHV Trust Fund

Dear Budget Conference Committee Members:

I write to you today as a California native and a strong supporter of the California Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Program. And, I urge you not to betray the public “trust” again by illegally taking user-pay/user-benefit monies from the OHV Trust Fund.

As a teenager in the late 1960s-70s, I remember filling out a state gas tax refund form where I got a refund from the state treasurer based on the amount of fuel I used when driving my OHV off-road (non-paved dirt roads). I also remember the promise made to me by the proponents of the Chappie-Z’berg Act of 1971 (that established the California OHV Program) that they would use these dedicated “trust” funds to manage motorized recreation. I trusted them.

Over the years, that trust has been betrayed on a number of occasions by both Republican and Democrat officials. In fact, there have been two lawsuits filed by the OHV community that successfully challenged the state government’s legal authority to raid the OHV Trust Fund.

As a member of the negotiating team (OHV, environmentalists, legislature, Governor’s Office) that met throughout the summer of 2007 to hammer out SB742 (the new OHV Program), I remember the group worked hard to make sure that protecting the “trust” in the OHV Trust Fund was a key statutory tenet of that legislation.

Today, I urge your committee to not betray the public-trust again by taking OHV money that is not yours to take.

Sincerely,


Don

Don Amador
California Native
555 Honey Lane
Oakley, CA 94561
Phone: 925.625.6287
Email: damador@cwo.com

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


Keep those letters coming and thanks for your service!

OHV Legal Fundraising Fatigue

As part of his work for BRC, The General is often given the lead regarding fundraising for legal efforts in his district. What has always been a difficult job has now become even more troublesome given the ongoing economic crisis in the country.

*

PHOTO: The General on a Designated Trail in Six Rivers NF

*

First, HQ wants to thank all of you (and you know who you are) who have donated to BRC’s legal efforts in CA including Six Rivers, Eldorado 2, So Cal Roadless, Clear Creek, and CDCA WEMO-NECO.

Link to Page 16 of Current BRC Online Magazine’s Legal Update
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/BRM_AUG-2010-Legal-Update.pdf

Second, HQ wants to encourage all riders -- who have promised to support BRC legal efforts but have not yet donated funds -- to go online and make that donation now.

HQ understands the difficult economic situation faced by many OHV families and businesses. If you are able to fulfill that commitment (a promise that TG is counting on), please go online and make that legal donation today at:

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

Snail Mail Donation Form
http://www.sharetrails.org/memberforms/Contrib.pdf

HQ thanks you in advance for your review of this request. Your fiscal support – or lack thereof - for these cases will be used as a decision metric for OHV involvement in future litigation. A special salute to those who have and are continuing to make fiscal donations to our legal efforts.

Contact info for The Recreation HQ

Recreation HQ
555 Honey Lane
Oakley, CA 94561
Email: damador@cwo.com

BBQ Diplomacy Needed in County v. Forest Service Fight

A lot of riders, OHV media, federal agents, and others are watching the ongoing struggle or battle of wills between the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the Shasta Trinity National Forest.

As you know, the BOS held a hearing on June 4 regarding the County’s appeal of the ROD and to have the informal disposition in a public forum as required by law.

June 6 Blog with info, archived news articles, etc.
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2010/06/shasta-county-close-to-vote-of-no.html


Based on direction by the BOS, the county counsel prepared and sent a letter on June 8 about the Forest‘s failure to appear. This letter was sent to Region 5, the Department of Agriculture, and Congress. The letter asked for a response by the Forest before the close of business on June 9. No response as of today.

June 8 BOS/Counsel Letter to Congress and USDA
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/HeywoodMtgLtr2.pdf


The letter while respectful does rightfully convey the board’s frustration with the Forest’s lack of communication and cooperation. The General does not believe the Forest has any excuse for not showing up. Some of you remember the OHV Commission meetings (circa 2000-2007) where the environmentalists who were running the commission often excoriated and made every effort to humiliate FS and BLM representatives in public. I think a lot of credit should go to those federal representatives who showed up and took the verbal abuse. I don’t know why the Shasta T decided to basically ignore the county’s request for a public forum. I don’t think it would have been near as hostile as the old OHV commission meetings.

Federal line officers should be able to take the heat. Their job today is really more political than resource oriented. Historically, District Rangers and Forest Supervisors integrated themselves into the community. They attended BBQs, fishing derbies, and turkey shoots. It seems that sort of camaraderie is sadly missing on the Shasta T.

Is there a growing rural county movement to challenge arbitrary land closures? We have seen the San Bento County BOS reopen county roads at Clear Creek. Del Norte County has joined recreation groups to challenge illegal road ripping. Shasta County seems to have joined in.

See WND Article on Counties Fighting Back
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137737


In the absence of the Forest Service using “BBQ diplomacy” in rural areas such as Shasta County, the local government has only two options when faced with arbitrary federal actions and those are lawsuits or asking for the line officer to be replaced.

I know recreation groups such as BRC, ROC, et al are committed to working with the agency, but that relationship has to be a two-way street.

Stay tuned as the Shasta saga continues.

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!!!
*

Congressman Jim Costa Weighs into Clear Creek Fight

The unexplainable gritty determination of BLM to kick OHV and the public out of Clear Creek is bizarre and does not pass the smell test.

The size and scope of the CCMA closure is unparalleled in the history of the USA. I am not aware of any recreation/access-based federal land closure that even remotely comes close to matching CCMA.

As we approach the March 5 deadline for the public comment period, The General believes we will know what BLM’s intent is for the future of OHV at CCMA.

If BLM does not grant an extension as requested now by two Congressmen, it will signal their intention is to permanently close CCMA to OHV use. It’s just that simple.

See Link to Congressman Jim Costa’s Letter
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/CCMA_DEIS_Costa_Letter.pdf

A failure to grant an extension will mean the public process is tainted and that access interests will have to either seek a political or legal remedy to this unwarranted closure. The land-use ball is in BLM’s court.

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!

Tuesday Dec. 22 Update on the Fight for Carnegie

The General has received a number of emails from riders who are asking, “Why have you been saying the Park’s last day of operation is Monday December 28 rather then agreeing with the Division’s after-hearing December 18 FAQ post on their website?”

OHMVR December 18 FAQ Post on Closure
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26096

Link to hard copy STAY

*

Link to Hard Copy of STAY
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=23855239

My concern was the uncertainty of the verbal court decision issued December 18 that said the STAY expired on December 29. Historically, state laws, regulations, and court decisions often take effect one minute after midnight on the cited day. I did not want to be telling riders for certain that the park would be open December 29 if there was ANY doubt in my mind.

It has been The General’s experience that verbal court decisions can change or be interpreted differently between when the court issues the verbal decision and when the affected parties actually receive the hard copy of the court document.

Since the verbal decision was issued, The Recreation HQ contacted OHMVR and requested that his office be informed when the Division received the actual document that would verify if the park was open until the close of business on December 29 or if the park was closed one minute after midnight on December 29.

Just this morning, I received confirmation from OHMVR that in fact the park would remain open for public use until the unit closes on December 29. That confirmation is based on hard copy documents OHMVR received on December 21. Note link above to hard copy that I got off the court website.

That information is good news as it will allow riders one more day to enjoy the park. In the meantime, OHV luminaries, legendary racers, business owners, and others are planning to be at the park on Monday December 28 for fellowship and trail rides. The Monday fellowship also works well for families that are taking a long vacation weekend and already have the day off.

At the end of the day, I don’t think there was anything wrong with the OHMVR’s original post that the park would be open through the end of business on December 29 v.
The General’s more pessimistic/jaded “wait and see” approach. Both are valid.

Thanks for staying involved and engaged in the Battle for Carnegie. I believe the time is rapidly approaching for a targeted letter writing campaign. Stay tuned.

Lump of Coal - SF Bay Area OHV Park Closure on Dec. 28

A dark storm struck the SF Bay Area today when a California court gave off-roaders a lump of coal followed by a gut punch when it granted a short STAY of the closure of Carnegie SVRA. The STAY expires at the end of business on Monday, December 28. The park will be closed on December 29 unless an appeal (with Divine intervention) is successful. *Even though the OHMVR new release below states the park is open on Dec. 29., I believe the park’s last day is Dec. 28. – will verify.

OHMVR News Release on STAY
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26096

The General has been in a lot of land use wars since 1990. The private property wars, the timber wars (my good friend was blown up by the Unabomber), the ESA wars, the Clinton-Gore roadless wars, the OHMVR Commission Wars, and now the OHV Legal Wars. It is my feeling that hard core anti-OHV groups may have scored a temporary victory, but they could have made a strategic error by awakening riders in the Bay Area who for the most part were unaware of eco-lawsuits and how they are being used as a weapon against OHV recreation.

Some of you already know about the eco-lawsuit scam. That is where anti-OHV groups file suits mostly on technical issues such as meeting a filing deadline or a resource issue that is already being worked on by the agency. In this day and age, it is very easy to get a court to side with that group against the agency. Hence, that OHV activity, farmer, rancher, builder, ski resort, or timber operation is ordered to halt by the court until that technical correction is addressed.

The General could play this game as well since he could find similar technical issues or resource concerns on any federal Wilderness Area or non-motorized state park. In fact, I have had an environmental group tell me that if I ever “wanted to switch sides” that I could have a job with them. Trust me; there is no land management agency that is perfect. Be assured, this is a power and political play that has nothing to do with “protecting the environment.”

What makes this worse is that enviros claim a win and often collect their tax-payer funded court and lawyer fees and use those funds to go after another victim.

See Story on Eco Legal Scam
http://www.cfact.org/a/1646/Western-Lawmakers-Target-TaxpayerSubsidized-Lawsuits

Yes, California Awards Eco Lawsuits Too
http://www.jacksonforest.com/News/state_pays.htm

More on Eco Lawsuit Scam at Taxpayers Expense
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/tracking-taxes-environmental-lawsuits/?test=latestnews

*
Info on Eco-Hoax Groups - read about a Skunk in OHV Politics
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blogspot.com/2009/11/skunk-in-co-ohv-politics.html

Most of the phone calls and emails my HQ has received are from riders and families who had never heard of eco-lawsuits, BRC, AMA Dist. 36, or other OHV clubs. On a personal level this closure is a deeply disturbing and ugly turn of events. On a professional level, I believe we must use the new energy (e.g. anger/frustration/determination/commitment) to gear up for this and other land use battles that will be coming at us in 2010.

It is uncertain if an appeal effort by the state will be successful. It looks like riders should be prepared for a 3-4 month closure of the park. Certainly there will be action items like a rally, letter writing campaign, petition signings, protest rides, etc. Also, there may be opportunities for volunteer work parties to help park staff on resource projects during the closure.

In the meantime, if you are not a member of BRC and want to help in the fight then join at http://www.sharetrails.org/

Since BRC works closely with AMA D36 and other groups…join AMA Dist. 36 as well
http://www.ama-d36.org/

*Legal side note: Be aware there was no real effective way for BRC legal or any other pro OHV legal representation to be involved in this case since you had greens on one side… Jerry Brown/AG (a green too) on the other side defending OHMVR, and the court presiding.


At this point, I plan to be at the park on Monday, Dec. 28 at noon and ride with my fellow brothers and sisters and stay until the park closes. I expect that others may join me. Stay tuned to this blog as I will be updating it on a regular basis. I wish I had better news.

Thanks for your service!

*

Coos County OHVers Face Day of Infamy

As a student of military history, The General believes the lawsuit filed on December 7, 2009 by the Center for Biological Diversity et al against the Riley Ranch Project is just
the first in a series of aggressive legal attacks to be filed against OHV recreation interests in Oregon.

See Dec. 7 Article on Lawsuit
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/12/groups_sue_to_stop_road_buildi.html

(be sure and scroll down to the bottom of the article and read a response/history of project by former Coos County Commissioner and friend of The General and fellow land use warrior – John Griffith)

As some riders in CA know (and OR riders are now finding out), CBD and their enviro buddies are very busy attacking OHV recreation on both federal and state lands.

Actual CBD/PEER Lawsuit filed recently on Eldorado NF
http://sierraconservation.org/Filed%20complaint%20Eldorado%20NF%20TMP%20case.pdf

The BRC Legal Defense Team has been, and will continue to be, engaged in the fight.

See BRC Legal Docket
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?legal=1&nonav=1

The question for OR riders is if they are ready to get some skin in the game and support a strong legal defense of balanced FS travel planning at Riley Ranch and elsewhere?

The General believes the anti-access crowd is watching to see how the OHV community responds to this attack. Just as CA, UT, and other states have seen their share of enviro-lawsuits, I think OR will see a like number filed there against both federal and state OHV travel planning projects.

How OR riders respond to this sneak attack will determine the outcome of the land use battle there and the future of OHV recreation in that state.

# # #