Marin judge: Prohibition on Mount Tam bike programs extended

A Marin County judge has delivered a victory to a group of environmentalists seeking to prevent expanded bicycle access on Mount Tamalpais.

A preliminary injunction issued Tuesday blocks the Marin Municipal Water District from launching two pilot programs: one that would have opened 7 miles of watershed trails to bikes, and another to allow class 1, pedal-assisted electric bikes.

The ruling comes two months after a temporary restraining order imposed the same restriction. However, the preliminary injunction extends that condition through the entirety of the related lawsuit. Judge Andrew Sweet issued a tentative ruling last month indicating he was leaning in favor of the preliminary injunction.

In a statement, the Marin Municipal Water District said the programs, which were set to launch in October for a two-year trial, “were designed to protect our watershed lands in a way that is responsive to the changing public uses of this community resource.”

“It’s unfortunate that after years of public engagement, forward progress on these pilot programs has been slowed by a legal challenge,” the statement says. “But we will continue to navigate the best path forward and will provide updates to the community as we have a better idea of changes and next steps.”

For now, it’s status quo on the mountain: Non-motorized bikes remain restricted to fire roads, and e-bikes are not allowed on the district property.

Bike access in the Mount Tamalpais watershed has been a polarizing issue for more than 30 years. The pilot programs are controversial, with critics citing safety and environmental impacts as their main concerns.

After several years of discussions over how to provide cyclists more enjoyment of the mountain, the water district board unanimously approved the pilot programs in September.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 26, claims the pilot programs would be bad for the mountain. The plaintiffs include the Marin Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, the Marin Audubon Society and the Marin Conservation League.

The suit states the water district failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act by forgoing an analysis of the potential disturbances to the habitat from bike riding.

In the suit, the group says the project area “contains critical biological resources, including dozens of rare plant species and plant communities, the federally listed Northern spotted owl and up to eight special-status bat species.”

“The addition of mountain bikes and e-bikes to these trails and roads for an indefinite two year period has the potential to harm these resources, disturbing owl nest sites and activity centers, trampling scarce and rare plant populations … and disturbing sensitive bat colonies due to the high pitch sound of the e-bikes’ mechanical engines,” the suit says.

Water district officials dispute the claim that they sidestepped the state’s environmental review mandates. The district said the pilot programs are exempt from a California Environmental Quality Act review for two reasons under an “existing facilities exemption.”

For one, illegal bike use is happening on the mountain already, the district said. Second, the use of trails by bikers should not constitute an expansion of the existing use because it is a similar activity to hiking and horseback riding.

In his ruling, Sweet wrote that even if there are cyclists riding trails illegally, the district presented no evidence that the activity was happening on the nine trails that are part of the pilot program.

Sweet said if the pilot programs proceeded, “the Watershed can reasonably anticipate seeing increased use of the affected routes by conventional bikers and e-bikers. Increased use means increased opportunity to trample plants and spread plant pathogens.”

Sweet said the district’s finding that the trail sharing program is exempt from CEQA under the existing facilities exemption “is not supported by substantial evidence.”

Sweet also concluded that the electric-bike access program cannot be considered separately from the trail sharing program.

“The Court concludes that Petitioners have made a very modest showing of interim harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction,” Sweet wrote. Whereas the water district, he said, “made no showing of interim harm.”

“I would say we’re certainly pleased with the judge’s ruling,” said David Long, co-president of the Marin Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. “It affirms our view that this kind of explosion of activity requires environmental review.”

Bicycle advocacy groups remain disappointed in the legal action, saying that the plaintiffs had been part of the planning for years developing recreation programs on the mountain.

“To have an interest group fight in typical NIMBY fashion is extremely disappointing,” said Vernon Huffman, executive director of the Access4Bikes Foundation. NIMBY stands for “not in my backyard.”

“What it means is we will now spend years of lawyers’ time investigating what we already know, that mountain biking is an appropriate use in our watershed,” Huffman said.

“Despite this setback we are hopeful that, once the merits are reviewed, the case will be decided in favor of more equitable recreational opportunities for people who ride,” said Krista Hoff, off-road advocacy director at the Marin County Bicycle Coalition. “We continue to support the work that the Marin Water District has put into this effort and believe in the staff and our elected board members’ ability to make decisions that are in the best interest of the watershed and the communities they serve.”