County sues Forest Service

[Plumas]

Plumas, Butte, associations and individuals file joint lawsuit.

When the Forest Service passed the Travel Management Rule 10 years ago, it resulted in restricting access to thousands of roads and trails previously used by motorized vehicles.

Now, a legal team and a group of plaintiffs hope to get that ruling reversed.

Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization, filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service on March 18 for blocking recreational routes in the Plumas National Forest.

PLF listed Plumas and Butte counties, the Sierra Access Coalition, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, Plumas resident Corky Lazzarino and Yolo County resident Amy Granat as plaintiffs in the 46-page court document.

The document lists all levels of the Forest Service as defendants — from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to current Plumas National Forest Supervisor Earl Ford.

In 2005, the Forest Service issued the Travel Management Rule, requiring each national forest to identify and designate roads, trails and areas that are open to motor vehicle use.

PLF senior staff attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich said this set the Forest Service in motion to deny accessibility to certain areas.

“Before 2005, any roads not specifically prohibited to motorized vehicles were allowed. After 2005, any roads that did not specifically allow motorized vehicles were prohibited.”

In 2010, the Plumas National Forest issued its public motorized travel management record of decision and environmental impact statement, which showed which roads and trails were designated for motorized use.

Not listed on the 2010 statement were thousands of user-made trails and roads previously used by motorized vehicles. The statement made those roads off limits for motorized vehicles.

A press release issued by PLF states that the lawsuit argues the U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by blocking access to much of Plumas National Forest without a careful, factually specific review of environmental impacts, including consequences for the public.

Hadzi-Antich said the Plumas National Forest did not consider the effect the 2010 statement would have on recreation in the forest, accessibility for disabled people and access for residents that depend on the forest for low-cost fuel.

“It also adversely affects numerous commercial interests in Plumas and Butte Counties that derive income from providing services related to motorized vehicle use and recreation,” Hadzi-Antich stated in the PLF press release.

The lawsuit lists 12 claims for relief against the Forest Service.

The PLF court document presents its case regarding accessibility for disabled people through the situation of one of its plaintiffs, Amy Granat.

Granat is the managing director of the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, a nonprofit that advocates for responsible recreation on public lands.

Granat has an autoimmune disease known as pemphigus vulgaris. Granat underwent chemotherapy treatment, which caused infections in her legs and limited her ability to walk.

Granat said she found that engaging in various activities in Plumas National Forest helped her deal with her disease.

“The mountains fulfill something in my soul,” she said. “The forest is not meant to be off limits to humans, it’s supposed to enhance our lives.”

Due to her trouble walking, some of Granat’s favorite areas to recreate were only available to her by using motorized vehicles. Once motorized use in those areas was banned, the areas were essentially closed off to her.

“The Forest Service was callous in their disregard for how this would affect people,” Granat said. “It became clearer and clearer these past years their goal was to eliminate motorized access.”

Corky Lazzarino and the Sierra Access Coalition have fought for access to public lands since 2006, when Lazzarino’s husband, Mike Lazzarino, formed SAC. After Mike died in 2010, Corky took on the role of SAC executive director.

Lazzarino, along with Granat, are named as individual plaintiffs in addition to their organizations being named.

“Our legal counsel wants to demonstrate to the judges how individuals are affected by the Travel Management Rule as well,” Lazzarino explained.

She said SAC had planned to file suit against the Forest Service for quite some time, but hit some major roadblocks on the way.

“We were originally going to file alone,” Corky noted. “We found an attorney, but he was going to charge us something like $300,000.”

SAC approached Plumas and Butte counties about joining forces. County supervisors got involved due to residents’ continued levels of frustration with the Forest Service.

“We feel the forest didn’t adequately fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,” said Sherrie Thrall, Plumas County District 3 supervisor. “At that time (the Forest Service) did not coordinate with the county.”

Thrall said Plumas County has disagreed with the Forest Service’s decision since 2005.

“When they start closing off access to the forest, they’re denying access to the owners — us,” she said. “The public is the forest’s owner; the Forest Service is its steward.”

The cost involved in filing a suit was always the main issue for all plaintiffs. Eventually, they found PLF.

PLF is not charging any of the plaintiffs for its services. If PLF wins the suit, it will be compensated for the time spent on the case.

“We looked carefully at the case, and it was one that conforms to our values,” said Hadzi-Antich.

The plaintiffs hope the courts will rule that the record of decision and final environmental impact statement are unlawful and void. None of the plaintiffs are seeking any monetary gain.

“They’re not asking for any money at all,” Hadzi-Antich said. “They’re just hoping to strike the federal decision as legal.”

All the plaintiffs said they are preparing for a long battle. PLF is still working on a similar lawsuit it filed against the Forest Service almost three years ago.

In July 2012 PLF filed a suit against the federal agency for halting Tahoe National Forest access for off-road recreationists. The case is currently in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lazzarino said PLF agreed to take the case only if all the plaintiffs were willing to take it up to the Supreme Court.

More information on the lawsuit can be found at Pacific Legal Foundation. https://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/r ... nat-1-1449

Plumas

[russau]

I hope this will set a precident and stop further abuse of their "authority" to pull kind of stuff in the future!

[Hoser John]

The Pacific Legal Foundation are great folks who contribute to the fights going on. They have even assisted on the 7 cases in front of Judge Oachoa right now. OOPS should clarify 6 of the 7 as PLPs all or nuttn' bs precludes them and boycott of mandatory court ordered arbitration meeting is horrendous hence no representations there either. PLF rocks and big a big fan for many years.-John