PEAK PUTTERS

Tuesday, August 3, 2010
New Anti-OHV Lawsuit to Stop Bridges and Toilets


By now, many riders that follow the Recreation HQ are aware of another anti-OHV lawsuit filed on July 30 by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation against OHMVR and the Eldorado National Forest.


CBD News Release on New Lawsuit
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2010.html



Text of Lawsuit
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog ... 8-2010.pdf





The filing of this new lawsuit in state court (yet another example in the long line of anti-OHV lawsuits filed by the aforementioned antagonists) seeks to establish a new regulatory “high barâ€

Trail Project Endangers Habitat, Groups Say
By MARIA DINZEO
ShareThis
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) - California park officials need to consider how plans for a "major expansion" of off-road vehicle trails in the Eldorado National Forest will affect the area's wildlife, two environmental groups claim in Alameda County Court.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation say the planned development in the Rock Creek recreation area of the forest endangers the habitats of several threatened plant and animal species, including the California red-legged frog, the Western pond turtle, the great grey owl, the Sierra Nevada red fox and the Eldorado manzanita, a native California shrub.
The Department of Parks and Recreation plans to add 8.9 miles of off-road vehicle (ORV) trails that would "involve construction of three new bridges, blasting of rock outcroppings, excavation, construction of retaining walls and new restrooms, and other 'improvements' that will result in a significant increase in the use of the Rock Creek area by ORVs," the groups claim.
They say the increased use of off-road vehicles will cause erosion and air pollution, and the destruction of endangered species by "physical crushing by ORV tires."
The groups call the department's short-term analysis of the project's impact "woefully inadequate," claiming a more detailed report is required under state environmental law.
They say the agency's narrow study "ignores entirely the project's noise, odor and visual impacts, providing only the bare conclusion that these impacts are less than significant," noting that the department has argued that "the environment in the area is already degraded."
"Under [the California Environmental Quality Act], it is not acceptable to add further insult to an existing environmental injury," the lawsuit states. "Rather, the question is whether any additional environmental harm should be allowed at all given the extent of the existing degradation."
The groups demand an order forcing the agency to prepare a full environmental analysis and postponing the expansion until it has done so.
They are represented by Michael Lozeau with Lozeau and Drury.

( Couthouse News Service via WildlandsCPR)