Eldorado National Forest update
“NATIONAL FOREST ACCESS AT RISK
Extreme anti access groups are once again suing the Eldorado National Forest over the recently completed Travel Management Plan Decision in an attempt to create a precedent setting case that will force the Forest Service to further “minimize” public access to roads and trails. The Plaintiffs, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Center for Biological Diversity and Forest Issues Group (aka Wilderness Groups) are asking the federal court to require the Forest Service to close roads and trails in order to first achieve a “minimum road system” before designating any of the few remaining routes for recreational use and public access. It has always been the wilderness group’s position that recreational routes be available for public access only after USFS gets around to completing studies for a site specific analysis to the wilderness groups’ satisfaction. The Forest Service all but admits the agency will never have the funding available to satisfy the wilderness groups’ vision. Our opponents are trying to create a system where the Forest Service will be forced to provide written assurance, in advance, that USFS has and will have all of the funds necessary to do the site specific environmental process, monitoring, trail maintenance, law enforcement, and related obligations, for each and every route. To further complicate any management efforts, the wilderness groups are also suing the State of California OHV Division in other venues to have many of the funding sources eliminated and cut-off from the National Forests.
The history of this situation clearly demonstrates that we cannot rely on the Forest Service (FS) to look after our public access and recreational interests, and the last thing that we now need is for Forest Service to willingly or unwillingly give away what little access we have remaining in any settlement agreement with wilderness groups. We need to have our public access and recreational interest groups at the table.
Several recreation access groups have joined together and have succeeded in having BlueRibbon Coalition and attorney Paul A. Turcke of Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke represent our interests. Our success so far is that we have been able to attain Defendant–Intervenors’ status with the court which allows us to participate in the litigation and any settlement process.
We recognize that most of the recreational access community is dissatisfied with elements of the National Forest Travel Management Plan Decisions. However, the gravity of the wilderness groups’ demands makes it clear that step one is to first stop their efforts to force the USFS into never ending studies and route closures.
If we as intervenors were to file cross claims as complaints against the current travel management decision, it would in effect place us on the side of the wilderness group asking for yet another round of travel planning via remand of the USFS decision to be redone. In the current sociopolitical environment that would be a huge risk towards allowing most of the wilderness group’s demands to be met. Their demands are far more injurious to us than the issues we have with the USFS decision at this time.
If the access groups and engaged public can demonstrate our unity and the ability to fund legal actions we can then be a force for issues in our own pro-active litigation. Let’s show that we can take care of this major threat to public access.
Please donate what you can. The key to this fundraising success is having as many pro-access community united in this action, so please spread the word. See attached, Plaintiffs legal brief.
The BlueRibbon Coalition will manage the Eldorado Legal defense fund and guarantee the payments to our attorney. Funds received over and above what is necessary for this action will be held to fund future action related to our issues.
Make your check payable to the BlueRibbon Coalition and indicate on the check (Eldorado Legal Defense Fund).
Mail to:
BlueRibbon Coalition
4555 Burley Drive, Suite A
Pocatello, ID 83202-1921
Thank you for your consideration and support.” (information provided by Rick Guidice)
_59-opposition-to-cross-msj-reply-in-support-of-pltfs-msj-2-4-11.pdf















