This was posted by a CORVA member on another BBS...

I just received today a document from the Center giving a 60 day notice of intent to sue under the Endangered Species Act. This time they want the BLM to shut down all OHV activity in the Rand Mountain/Fremont Valley area (between Mojave and Ridgecrest and south of SR 14).

The area and it's Plan received a Biological Opinion from USFWS in 1993. A 90% reduction of the vehicle routes within the expanded ACEC were required in the Plan. Outside the ACEC, a 75% reduction in vehicle routes were required under the Plan. The rational for all of this? The desert tortoise!

Seems as if BLM agreed with USFWS to accomplish these reductions in routes - along with a long list of other actions - to recieve the blessing of the USFWS. Many OHV folks spent countless hours over a period of three years to help BLM with this task.

According to my source within BLM, since 1995, Ridgecrest BLM failed to finish these tasks and failed to monitor and report to the public their progress in accomplishing the provisions of the Plan. I find this most interesting in that under the Clinton administration, hailed as one of the most "green" presidents we have had, BLM failed to protect the desert tortoise as they had committed to under the previous Bush administration.

Once again, we, the motorized recreationist are ask to endure harm and depravation of our form of recreation at the hands of BLM's inattention to detail and commitments made to the public.

Here we go again, another $ 250,000 to save our rightfull opportunities to access our public lands.

ttt -- here we go again with the cbd. :(
Scott

I talked to Jeri (Cal4Wheel) today and the CBD notice of intent is more involved than a simple lawsuit regarding the Rand/Freemont area. There seems to be considerable confusion on this issue.

The CBD's NOI and threat includes enforcement of the initial terms of the greater CBD vs. BLM lawsuit, including closure of the entire desert as requested in the initial lawsuit. This includes the Glamis closures as litigated before October 2000, before any settlement agreement (the entire CBD demands, before the Desert Advisory Council meeting in Barstow when the "agreement" was announced).

The CBD has offered to allow the BLM to delay completion of the NEMO, NECO, ISDA, Imperial Valley Plan, and the Western Mojave plans (more, but I failed to write it all down), action required in the stipulated agreement by the date identified in the lawsuit. The BLM says they cannot complete these plans by the date agreed to in the CBD lawsuit.

The CBD is agreeing to allow the Judge to direct the BLM to extend the completion date of these plans, but only if they are allowed to add thirteen stipulation amendments to the initial lawsuit (they demand more, in exchange for overlooking the BLM failure to comply).

One of these thirteen amendments is immediate closure of the Rand ACEC (not the entire Rand/Freemont area).

The Judge has voiced agreement to allow the BLM the delay on the plans, in exchange for the inclusion of these amendments, but has postponed a decision due to conflicts in the wording of the CBD's argument (failure to address constitutional requirements for public review). The only mechanized enthusiast intervenor active in the process, Cal4Wheel, has not taken a position on this "amendment for extension" process (other than to preserve our legal rights to file future objections).

The other three mechanized enthusiast interveners: BRC, SDORC, and the Desert Vipers have not communicated to Cal4Wheel any input with support or direction on this issue.

We need to be aware this is not another lawsuit with the CBD, it is an extension of the existing lawsuit. The CBD is using the failure of the BLM to fight the past lawsuits, agreements made during the Clinton Administration, as leverage to add stipulation demands. It appears that the CBD has litigated an open-ended agreement with the BLM. An agreement where they can request the court to add stipulation demands where they feel it is necessary to meet their goals, and they offer the threat of a court ordered closure of the entire desert (the initial lawsuit demand, before any agreement) if they cannot get their way.

My opinion is the CBD is incrementally achieving the bulk of each closure demand in the initial lawsuit, by threatening the BLM (and us) with a court ordered closure of the entire list of demands as the alternative. Most of the incremental closure agreements have some mechanized access preserved (gained in the hard fight by the interveners, a victory of sorts, but quite a compromise of the total and subject to court review).

The quiet nature of these incremental agreements assures the motorized enthusiast public remains ignorant of the CBD's process, and unaware of the greater loss to public access (ask yourself, how much do you really know about the process). Each piece of land that is negotiated away in agreements and stipulations will never be restored to public access (a fear of Cal4Wheel) as opposed to actually fighting the lawsuit in general (where we have a chance to throw out all the stipulations, although ensure a temporary total desert closure).

Right now Cal4Wheel is fighting to keep access open in corridors and what they can identify that is not already tied up in stipulation agreements or amendments, rather than tell the BLM to oppose the CBD and risk a temporary court order for total closure. This is their position because they believe this is what you want them to do.

If you want the interveners to fight the lawsuit (ask the BLM to fight the lawsuit), rather than negotiate a compromise on each stipulation demand, you need to tell them you are willing to risk a total temporary closure of all areas identified in the original CBD vs. BLM complaint.

The apathy and ignorance of the general public, to the unreasonable demands the CBD has litigated to the BLM, is what we face everyday on this issue. Fighting the actual lawsuit will call the CBD's bluff, and may result in temporary total closure of the desert, and a total closure action is assured to inform the public of the problem. The "temporary" court ordered closure might last for years (until political pressure forces a resolution, as the CBD is willing to fight as long as it takes). Are you willing to endure the "temporary" closure?

Up to now we have directed the interveners to compromise, although its not too late to revise our position. What is your preference: fight or compromise?

Happy Trails!

My position has been and always will be the same:

FIGHT!!


I was against any comprimise from the beginning for exactly the reason you referenced above.... The cbd will just keep getting small areas "comprimised" by us till they can use it against us in one way or another.... the two ways I see being very predictible and feasable are

closing a bunch of small areas around the edge of a larger area and then saying it is "landlocked" or some other crap and we can't access it through the closed areas so it too should be closed (ie: kinda what happened in Surprise and panamint, the access was closed so the area may as well be closed to)

or

using our "comprimises" to show the BLM, FS, etc that we agree we are ruining things and agree with closures, therefore we want more



So I'm totally opposed to any comprimising. I feel there are enough of us to take back our land and our access rights, without giving in to ANY green demands!

Now I just need to convince everyone else that enjoys the outdoors the time is now or never, and they better start moving fast and hard....


:usa:

The one learning tool that is most valuable is identifying the repeated tactics of the opposition to litigate: requesting a deadline for action by the land manager, and then pressing for a stipulation agreement when the goals demanded by the deadline are not documented. This is occurring as we speak, in more places than the desert. Are we keeping independent records of the land manager's action to meet the stipulation demands?

This is the situation in the Western Rand ACEC closures that are part of the stipulation amendments, amendment paragraph #12.

From what I understand, the closure demand is based on the BLM lacking documentation that they reduced OHV routes and made improvements to the tortoise habitat, even if they actually achieved the goals of the litigated agreement of 1990. We know routes were closed, and habitat improved. Cal4Wheel members assisted this process (thinking, if we all pitch in we gain goodwill). It appears much of the required work was completed, but documentation did not follow up to record the action. The lack of documented progress allows the CBD to sue the BLM, and use this parallel litigation as leverage to make gains in other areas of the desert.

The only documentation on record (from what I have been told) is the opposition photos of perceived damage from vandals and drivers ignorant of the preserve areas and improvements. I may underestimate the BLM record keeping, but if they have evidence that they complied with the litigated stipulations I would think providing the documentation would be less career threatening than claiming they are incompetent (unless they allow personal bias determine record keeping, and fear no accountability). Regardless of motivation, or quality of record keeping, we cannot assume the BLM (or management agency) will keep accurate records. We need to maintain a parallel set of records documenting BLM efforts to meet stipulation
demands. The judge can only review evidence.

This highlights a provision of the amendment, that "closure will not affect administratively approved travel by BLM and its volunteer agents or contractors." Can we trust BLM's record keeping of the habitat quality between now, the closure, and the release of the Western Mojave Plan record of decision? Do we need volunteer oversight?

Clubs other than Cal4Wheel may be wise to review the stipulation amendments. The potential closure demands for Dunn Road (for instance) have another deadline. The demand for a report on the Coachella Valley milkvetch may be best monitored by a group that desires an independent biological opinion, during the review rather than after the report is released.

The demand that the "BLM will provide the CBD a brief written summary monthly of the efforts made to increase patrols, an indication of compliance of those patrols, action taken to enhance compliance, and a summary of actions taken to respond to specific reports of noncompliance areas" should be monitored. The reports may indicate where the next "stipulation amendment" round of demands are targeted. Reviewing this report should prevent the motorized enthusiast from remaining ignorant of the problems. Is a group willing to request a copy of the BLM/CBD report and review it for proactive action needs?

BTW, amendment #7 spells out that the BLM is to seek "grants from the California Off-highway Vehicle Commission" to fund the closing and rehabilitation of unauthorized routes in the Western Colorado plan area. OHV, Green Sticker, registration trail funds are targeted. Most of the active public knows this is occurring, it's just spelled out here for those who cannot believe OHV enthusiast funds collected by the state will be paying for closures (maybe it will wake someone up).

I have a real job, and my fax of the amendments is poor, so I'll get back to work. This quick report is (however) what I am looking for as far as information about what is ongoing in the lawsuit process. Is there a group that has someone that can provide the recreation public a similar resource (someone who does not have to abandon work to get information out)?

Before I sign off, I think we should review the concession to abandon an unbiased study of the growth of motorized recreation, funded by the state. Without an alternative report, the only record of the growth in OHV use is the "Road to Ruin" portrait. The perceived need to drop the Assembly Bill, to draft a report, is over. Why not get a similar bill back on the agenda of the state government? Who do we write to place the bill back on the state agenda?

Happy Trails!