Court order closes 42+ trails in the El Doradao National Forest (US - Sierra Nevadas)

[Shamus30]

This my friends is not a good thing at all. This impacts most of the major overland routes across and within the Sierra Nevada Range.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldora...TELPRDB5362068

Forest service Press Release 04/04/12

Forty-two off-highway-vehicle routes that cross meadows in the Eldorado National Forest may be closed to motor vehicle travel this recreation season while the Forest Service completes an environmental analysis, announced Eldorado National Forest Supervisor Kathy Hardy.

The potential travel prohibitions are the result of a February 2012 court order by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton. The order said the Forest Service failed to comply with the National Forest Management Act in 2008 when it designated “open for public motor vehicle use” portions of 42 routes that cross meadows. Judge Karlton ordered the Forest Service to “set aside” the decision that designated these segments as open and to reconsider the decision.

A final court order with further direction to the Forest Service is pending. In the interim, Karlton ordered the 42 routes remain closed to motorized public use. The final order will identify specifically where travel will be prohibited until a new environmental decision is made.

“I know that prohibiting travel on these routes will be a big disappointment to forest visitors, but we have to be responsive to the order.” said Hardy. “I have a team of people lined up to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement as quickly as possible.”

The SEIS is scheduled to begin in April or May 2012 and to be completed by April 2013.

Hardy says many popular high county routes may be affected by the closure. Some of these routes include: Barrett Lake Jeep Trail; Squaw Ridge Four Wheel Drive Trail; Clover Valley/ Deer Valley Trail; Strawberry Four Wheel Drive Trail; Carson Emigrant Trail; Allen’s Camp Motorcycle Trail and the Bucks Pasture Motorcycle Trail. The Rubicon 4wd Trail is not affected by this court order.

Maps and a complete list of the routes affected by the court order will be posted on the Eldorado National Forest website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/eldorado. These maps will be modified to reflect the final court order once it is received. A free-of-charge motor vehicle use map that shows the routes that are open to wheeled motor vehicle use will be available at all Eldorado National Forest offices in June 2012 reflecting the final order.

“I intend to close the routes where it makes sense to do so if the final order prohibits travel on routes that cross meadows,” said Hardy. “A route may be closed near a meadow or some distance away depending on how difficult it is to turn a vehicle around.”

Some routes will also be closed indirectly because they branch off closed routes and will not be accessible.

[dwh]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...ntalism_essay/

[Ryanmb21]

Lame, I visit this area multiple times a year.

[Christian P.]

wow, this is a real bummer.

[haven]

"Money flows mightily to this organization...these $$$$$ grubbers"

xtatic, you clearly have more information about this than the rest of us. Can you provide any source to support your claims?

The Forest Service and BLM have the responsibility to maintain the health of the lands they manage, and meadows are vulnerable to vehicular traffic. Let them study the situation and propose some solutions (if needed) before condemning the process.

[4x4x4doors]

And what part of those legal fees were in the form of reimbursements from the Federal government? Recall that many suits under the umbrella of Government failure to comply allow/require that the prevailing non-Government entity have their allowable expenses reimbursed.

[xtatik]

And what part of those legal fees were in the form of reimbursements from the Federal government? Recall that many suits under the umbrella of Government failure to comply allow/require that the prevailing non-Government entity have their allowable expenses reimbursed.

I don't believe those numbers reflect either rewards or recovery of legal expenses. In most cases, I'd guess that the CBD would be a complainant with the government a respondent. It's not likely the complainant can sue additionally for litigation costs when they bring the suit in the first place. In nearly all cases the CBD is the acting aggressor. Those numbers reflect the moneys earned from clients in representing their wants/wishes. In many cases, this money is paid in addition to whatever donations they have made as well. An example might be the Sierra Club. They might be a large donor to the "Center's" general fund and they might also hire them to address a specific legal project.

[cnynrat]

As for the $$$$$, here is the best I could derive from public records: /snip/

Some great and very thought provoking info here - thanks.

For some time I've believed that the Endangered Species Act and other similar laws have primarily become tools for achieving the narrow interests of various groups such as the Sierra Club. The description of the Sierra Club as a 'hiking club' is apt. At times they seem to exist primarily to support the 'chosen' outdoor recreational activities of their membership.

Back in the early days of the mountain bike, the Sierra Club actively worked to exclude mountain bike access from many areas based on their concern about trail erosion. During this time they were actively running pack mule trips in the Sierras where stock use is the primary cause of trail erosion.

[clcoyle]

Very troubling news

[4x4x4doors]

I don't believe those numbers reflect either rewards or recovery of legal expenses. In most cases, I'd guess that the CBD would be a complainant with the government a respondent. It's not likely the complainant can sue additionally for litigation costs when they bring the suit in the first place. In nearly all cases the CBD is the acting aggressor. Those numbers reflect the moneys earned from clients in representing their wants/wishes. In many cases, this money is paid in addition to whatever donations they have made as well. An example might be the Sierra Club. They might be a large donor to the "Center's" general fund and they might also hire them to address a specific legal project.

Who Pays for the Lawyer?

In the United States, the loser in a lawsuit does not have to pay the winner’s attorney’s fees unless obligated to do so by a contract or a law specifically authorizing such an award. Many federal statutes do exactly that, authorizing a court to allow fees to a prevailing party in a proceeding in which the government agency, whether involved in the litigation as a plaintiff or a defendant, is found to have violated the federal laws and regulations. The Equal Access to Justice Act, which is the focus of Budd-Falen’s work, was passed by Congress to give citizens a tool to lessen the risk of challenging the power of the federal government by allowing them to recoup attorneys’ fees when they prevail– and also meet several other requirements that federal judges have broad discretion to apply.

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article..._fees/C37/L37/

State environmental statutes have their own provisions that may provide for the award of
counsel fees, and contractual provisions between litigants can also serve to shift the potential fee burden.

http://www.mgkflaw.com/articles2012/...ion_032012.pdf

I am aware of specific cases where "environmental" groups (in the case in memory, it was Audobon and Defenders of Wildlife represented by SELC) had attorney fees reimbursed by the Government is the reason I asked. This specific instance doesn't bolster nor dispute your posted information, just adds data to the discussion.