Recreation area to remain open
by Bob Brownne/Tracy Press
Jun 28, 2012 | 3830 views | 6 6 comments | 26 26 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The two sides in a lawsuit that once threatened to shut down the Carnegie off-road vehicle park have agreed to terms that will keep the park open while offering more protection for Corral Hollow Creek.

A stipulated judgment filed in Alameda County Court on May 29 dismissed a lawsuit by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance against the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

The Alliance, which filed the suit in September 2009, claimed motorcycles and other off-road traffic in the 1,540-acre Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area caused erosion that polluted the creek, which flows seasonally and empties into the valley floor southwest of Tracy.

The settlement allows off-road use to continue in the park on the San Joaquin-Alameda county line in Corral Hollow Canyon southwest of Tracy, as long as certain areas, including the creek, are off-limits to traffic.

It also affirms that new Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board permits, plus new deadlines for the state park to prove that it has met the terms of those permits, are sufficient to protect water quality in Corral Hollow Creek.

The court issued an ultimatum in September 2009 that required the state to either prohibit off-road use or get a Water Quality Control Board permit to allow sediment in the creek.

But Sportfishing Alliance Executive Director Bill Jennings said that his group’s only goal was the protection of water quality.

“We weren’t trying to get (the state) to close the park. We were trying to get them to control the pollution,” Jennings said.

The park stayed open as the state worked toward a new permit that defines how much sediment is allowed in the creek. In the meantime, the park has continued to be a destination for recreational riders and competitive motorcycle hillclimb events.

Advocates for off-highway vehicle recreation consider the settlement a victory.

Don Amador of Oakley, the western representative for the nationwide BlueRibbon Coalition, said that the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board were already able to control runoff into the creek prior to the lawsuit.

“I believe the suit had more to do with the plaintiffs fronting their anti-OHV (off-highway vehicle) agenda than accomplishing any meaningful environmental protection measures,” Amador wrote in an email to the Tracy Press. “The park already had been working with sister agencies on various water quality and erosion measures, such as settling ponds and wet weather closures.”

Bob Williamson, superintendent of the State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, affirmed those are goals that the parks department had in its sights even before the lawsuit was filed.

“From the beginning, we have worked with the water boards to be placed into a stormwater program,” Williamson said. “We’re all happy with the settlement, and the terms are quite reasonable. It moves us in a direction we were already going.”

The hills on the south side of Corral Hollow Canyon have seen off-road competitive events and recreational riders since the 1920s. The state park was established in 1979, and in 2011 about 65,000 riders visited the park, a decline from previous years.

Corral Hollow Creek is a seasonal waterway, and the channel disappears after it reaches the valley floor, and the water seeps into the ground.

State agencies banded together to study the effects of off-road traffic on the Corral Hollow Canyon watershed in 2001, and in August 2011 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board created a plan to reduce the sediment, found to contain heavy metals and other pollutants, created by off-road traffic.

The plan defines areas within the park that are off-limits to riders, including the creek itself, with the exception of specific places where riders can cross the creek. The plan also calls for restoring areas that have been heavily damaged by trails.

The board followed up the release of that plan with an order in February that calls for detailed studies, and sets deadlines to make sure water quality goals are met.

Jennings said that the order, plus the $65,000 in attorney fees the state had to pay to the Alliance, makes it a win for his group.

“They have to live within the permit limitations. They’ve already had to do studies on how to control sediment,” he said. “The lawsuit has driven them toward compliance. Whether we get there, we will see.”

Comments-icon Post a Comment
June 29, 2012

Why did you wait till after he went from Sacramento to Washington to ask about the allegations of nepotism?

Is that a perk that is offered to all the paying customers or just one?
June 29, 2012
Mr Jennings is messed up.

The CVWQCB was already in progress with the State

OHMVRD for the water process and permits.

PEER (a well known legal filing lawsuit vexatious litigant environmental group) and Sport Fishing Alliance were just doing the dirty work for a CSVRA neighbor who just happens to be a relative of sitting US Congressman John Garamendi, and the combined efforts of these folks, filed a questionable lawsuit to shut down a STATE PARK.

They lost after a fight in the courts. How they can spin it to show they "won" just shows how the mental side of the Plaintiffs work.....Nuts!

They lost, all counts, and now must pay their attorney $500,000 large..... And in the process, the TAXPAYERS of this state had to pay 65 grand..

Another whacko group trying to destroy one of the best "parks" in the State System.

Oh by the way, NOT ONE of the OHMVRD SVRA/Parks were on the list for closure.......... Instead, the State continues to STEAL funds from the Trust Fund of the self supporting OHV Division of State Parks..........AND has done so for 40 years...........

June 29, 2012
The next question is which of the swim center lawsuits will they lose.
June 29, 2012

How can you be "Friends of Carnegie"?

June 29, 2012
I don't know how the Fishing group can claim a 'win' when it had to pay about 500K of its own legal fees. Suggestion: stick to fishing issues... there has never been any fish in the park's creek.

June 29, 2012
Ya, that sure was a ruse. Good point!

We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at