Inyo County reactions to ATV lawsuit

By Deb Murphy

In February 2013, two environmental groups filed suit against Inyo County and the Adventure Trails project. That suit was resolved when the County agreed to go ahead with a California Environmental Quality Act review of the impacts of combined-use on county roads and the impact of increased Off Highway Vehicle use on public lands.

Signs 001

Almost a year-to-date of that settlement, the Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a second suit requesting the courts set aside the Board of Supervisors adoption of the Adventure Trails System pilot project and “suspend all activity” relating to the project on the grounds the CEQA and Environmental Impact Report were inadequate.

“I’m disappointed a group outside this area can influence a project that went through the public process,” said County Board of Supervisors Chair Matt Kingsley, reached by phone late last week. “We went through this process in the open. The fact that we reached a compromise that everyone seemed satisfied with makes this (lawsuit) even more disappointing.” The suit probably came as no surprise to Kingsley who closed the public meeting on the project, January 22, by saying he hoped there would be no lawsuit as a result of the board’s unanimous approval of a seven-route pilot project.

Both Kingsley and Adventure Trails’ Randy Gillespie were concerned the state legislation that gave impetus to the project would sunset before an effective evaluation of the project could be made. The project, that could be up and running by mid-summer, sunsets in January 2017.

“The saddest thing,” said Gillespie “is that OHV use will continue with no education and no law enforcement.” That education will focus on new OHV use in the area pointing out sensitive habitat and cultural resource areas and discouraging off-trail activity.

The compromise, Gillespie noted, took the project from 72 combined-use routes to 36 and finally down to the seven approved by the Board. “People told us they were concerned about OHVs in residential neighborhoods,” he said. “So we removed those routes.”

The suit specifically calls for the removal of signage, “Cowboy Kiosks” that have already popped up in the valley. The suit refers to the kiosks as “ORV sign posts” and states “The Planning Department approved the Cowboy Kiosks encroachment permit without any environmental review.”

Encroachment permits, issued by the Department of Public Works, are considered an administrative action that follows standard procedure and does not trigger environmental review. The signs were put up by the Adventure Trails System advocates, designed “to fit the image” of the community, according to Gillespie, and funded with a separate Green Sticker grant. The kiosks incorporate arrows with end destinations, like Keoughs or Coyote, but no reference to a specific mode of transportation.

While speakers at the Supervisors’ January 22 meeting were evenly divided between proponents and opponents, the primary objection by opponents was the adequacy of the County’s CEQA. The lawsuit alleges the documents “violate the requirements of CEQA Guidelines as substantial evidence does not support the County’s Findings.” The fact some routes are, allegedly, longer than 10 miles is cited as a violation of the enabling legislation. The brief goes on to state the County did not revise and circulate the Draft EIR after aerial surveys were completed to establish baseline data. Mitigation and monitoring are also cited as  cause for the action.

County staff cannot comment on litigation, but the project is still moving forward as Inyo County Counsel Margaret Kemp-Williams and her staff are taking the procedural steps required by California’s public resource code.

 

, , ,

17 Responses to Inyo County reactions to ATV lawsuit

  1. Trouble March 4, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

    Some people just can’t stand to see other people having fun!

     
  2. Just a Taxpayer March 4, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

    County Board, please stop it now. You will throw good money behind a defense of this proposal yet you cannot even fix the streets in this County? Cut and run while you can…

     
  3. wagonrd March 5, 2015 at 7:17 am #

    There are still a few places to go off roading here in Mono and Inyo Counties, just do so quietly with only a few vehicles and stay on the approved roads. Stay off paved roads. Anytime you alert the 72+ environmental groups in California of off road travel, they go ballistic. For real adventure, you must go to Utah.

     
  4. Jane March 5, 2015 at 10:19 am #

    Respectfully, these groups have many members and supporters locally, so I do not think it is fair to call them outsiders.

     
    • Trouble March 7, 2015 at 1:01 pm #

      Are we really getting sued for allowing motorized vehicals to drive on paved roads? Get a life!

       
    • Fish Dude March 7, 2015 at 8:13 pm #

      Jane, Respectively, you are throwing good money(your contributions) towards bad. These groups do nothing but litigate and attempt to ruin established, good, and honest businesses. They do not compromise nor do they even try to communicate. They(CBD and PEER and others) are the problem, not the solution. Please do some homework.Their way or the highway. Ranchers, Farmers, Recreation.. We can barely eke out a living because of this. Put your energy towards something worthwhile such as Green Energy, Desalinization etc. etc.

       
  5. Charles O. Jones March 5, 2015 at 12:34 pm #

    I can understand that Supervisor Kingsley might be disappointed that his decision is being challenged, but if he truly thinks that “everyone seemed satisfied” – then he is living in a bubble.

    And these public lands belong to everyone, not just locals. The fact that the challengers are from out of the area is irrelevant. Just as business owners hope to draw more visitors from out of the area, there are others from out of the area who have concerns with this proposal.

     
    • Desert Tortoise March 6, 2015 at 8:01 pm #

      Well said. Took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo.

       
  6. CarbonFootPrint March 6, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

    There seems to be a lot of compromise on the part of the proponents to get this ball rolling. Yet very vocal and wealthy entitys will do whatever it takes to prevent this from happening. Really… an EIR for recycling old railroad ties for signage on rights of way that have already been established. Sounds a bit petty. Are these the same groups who have been taking green sticker money to put barriers up to block the dirt roads in the area? Was their an EIR for that? I think I’ll file a lawsuit. Oh wait, all my like minded friends don’t work for the government agencies that helped get the green sticker funds to close perfectly good dirt roads.

    Let the pilot program go forward. If it doesn’t work; I’ll be the first to say enough, no more.

    Disclaimer:

    If it sounded like a rant, it was. I’m just tired of people saying lets compromise and get things done in government or whatever in life. I say, put your money where your mouth is.

     
    • Desert Tortoise March 9, 2015 at 6:14 am #

      Funny how working people magically become “wealthy elites” as soon as they organize to oppose something the business community wants that a segment of the general public does not. Most of the opposition is far less wealthy than the businesses pushing this.

       
      • Charles O. Jones March 9, 2015 at 3:06 pm #

        Yes, “wealthy elites” and similar comments are often thrown about by people who wish to marginalize the opinions of those they disagree with. Like most sweeping generalizations, such comments are based far more in fantasy than in reality.

         
  7. baqdfinger39 March 7, 2015 at 12:15 am #

    Agenda-21 will become Law of tha Land soon where only tha Elite can travel and enjoy these thar public Lands, followed by the coming Carbon-Tax that All americans shall be required to pay on the very Air ya’ll breath, and it will be illegal to heat your homes with woodstoves on the coldest days so ya’ll will have to buy the corporations Propane-LNG Gas to keep from Freezing, This Is how amerikans will live in the Home of the Brave, Land of the Free….. because the govt. can No Longer afford to PAY it’s interest on its DEBT…Hahahaha LoL 🙂

     
    • Desert Tortoise March 9, 2015 at 10:29 am #

      Funny how whenever a group chooses to oppose the wishes of the business community some place they are labeled “the elite”. I sincerely doubt any of the opponents of this Adventure Trails program have as much money or live in as large a home as those pushing for it and I would wager few or none of the opposition has a business that stands to benefit from the Adventure Trails program. The real elite are the businesses owners who will profit from the Adventure Trails program, not the opposition. What other mindless pejoratives can you blithely throw around badfinger?

       
      • Low-Inyo March 9, 2015 at 4:23 pm #

        Spot on,Desert Tortoise…..I would be willing to bet if this was put to a vote among Valley residents they would vote it down,even though the Supervisors and some business owners with a horse in this race try to say it’s what we “all” want.Thank goodness we have environmental groups to over-see,and maybe know what will happen if these ORV groups get their foot in the door to some areas up here.Good-Bye beautiful quiet,quaint little communities.Hello Antelope Valley.

         
      • Trouble March 9, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

        Desert Tortoise, I live on one of the excluded routes and the only people I know of on my block that are against it work for the County. I’ll leave names out of it, but it doesn’t seem very fair that one person out of a hundred should be able to derail this project.

         
  8. wagonrd March 8, 2015 at 7:37 am #

    It amazes me that the environmental groups opposes minor proposals such as the Adventure Trails, but remain silent on such issues as “The stacks if pack train manure on most of the trailheads to the John Muir Trail.” What a great experience, stench and brown stuff on your gators and boots for miles!. Then, total silence about the Chamber if Commerce efforts to get more fishermen to our lakes and streams. There’s hundred of miles if monofilament line hung up on the bottom and truckloads of lures and sinkers down there; and the stream and lake shores are beaten bare by fushermen. Then there’s the Swall Meadows fire which burned all those pine trees and bitter brush; had anyone tried to thin them out to reduce the wildfire risk, the environmental folks would become violent. So, there’s two sides to every issue, and like our Senators and Congressmen, as long as you agree with me, we will get along just fine

     
  9. dave m m March 8, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

    The Adventure Trails Program has made enemies before even getting started. That business of putting up signs that favor one user group over another is just not cool. Can I go out and put up mountain bike signs, climbing area signs, or bird watching signs? No, but the county is approving these OHV signs that look substandard.

    Instead of pushing this system down our throats, I suggest concentrating on Staging Areas with picnic tables, bathrooms, sign boards, grills and loading ramps like the rest of the smart OHV areas in California do. That is something everyone could agree on. Users do not need to ride on dirt roads from area to another. They just need nice facilities to go to that are designed specially for them. Get with the program Inyo County. You supervisors are so backward it is not funny!

     

Leave a Reply



KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design