Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Sandman
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:06 pm

Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by Sandman » Tue May 18, 2010 4:15 pm

Here is a new educational video put out by the Friends of Jawbone canyon promoting responsible recreation. Good job!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs47SeEx ... r_embedded

Sandman
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:06 pm

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by Sandman » Thu May 20, 2010 6:00 am

I believe this is a step in the right direction for OHV groups. As a property owner and resident living surrounded by lands administered by the BLM as a limited use area, I see illegal and unauthorized OHV use on a daily basis. Currently in this area, there is a lawsuit pending and a settlement proposal will restrict use on designated trails to street legal vehicles only. The amount of non compliance by the so called "green and red sticker" vehicles has reached the point where it has become unmanageable and the result is irreparable damage to the surrounding landscape in the Arrastra Canyon region. Illegal hill climbs are visible for several miles away. The BLM does not have the law enforcement capabilities to manage the scofflaws and it appears the only way to manage and protect this limited use area for all public users is to ban the element that cannot follow the rules until a time when a manageable plan can be implemented.

When the WEMO plan was implemented, we were told if we give the single track MC riders some legal routes to ride, they would stay on them and help maintain them. All it has done is encourage MC riders to come to this area and the result has been a dramatic increase in illegal route proliferation with rampant hill climbing. The recent winter rains quickly rutted these areas causing ugly scarring of what were recently pristine hillsides.

The only solution that I can see is a large scale effort by OHV advocacy groups to educate their members on the importance of staying on the legal marked trails in limited use areas. Like everything in life , there are consequences for those who cannot abide by the rules. Unfortunately, the consequences of illegal OHV use in limited use areas is the loss of the privilege of accessing these areas. This user group has only themselves to blame. If they cant stay on the legal trails then access should be restricted to plated vehicles only. Violations should be tied into driving records and fines should be heavy enough to provide a real deterrent to bad behavior. In the future, these lands should be considered for re opening to "red/green sticker" vehicles once it is proved they can be trusted to abide by the law and the damage to surrounding land ceases.

While some may disagree, that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it

MMM
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by MMM » Thu May 20, 2010 10:21 am

Closing areas is the easy way out. Blame everyone for the actions of the few, the easy way. I am not in agreement with sandman. First no damage made by any OHV or otercycle is irepaiable. It may take time, but in time all heals. Yes it is ugly and should never have been made, and those responsible must be held accountable, but use reason. If a OHV or motercycle (usually a single person or a ver small number of people) ride illeagly, bust them. How? The motercycle had to be trucked or hauled in. Look for the staging area, you have the ID you need. Closing large areas to most people make about as much sence as closing down highways because of the bad drivers/drunk driver/speeders who use them. COMMON SENCE is what is needed, not knee jerk reactions.

Mike

User avatar
Plays In The Dirt
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by Plays In The Dirt » Thu May 20, 2010 10:42 am

Closing Areas Are Not "Knee Jerk Reactions."

This was taken from a BLM Memorandum:


"UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
http://www.blm.gov/

December 11, 2009

In Reply Refer To:
8340, 8341, 8342, 8358, 9100 (250) P

EMS TRANSMISSION 12/17/2009
Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-028
Expires: 09/30/2011

To: All Field Office Officials
Attention: State, District and Field Office Program Leaders including Recreation, National Landscape Conservation System, Fire, Hazardous Materials, Planning, and Law Enforcement Officers

From: Director

Subject: Requirements for Processing and Approving Temporary Public Land Closure and Restriction Orders

Program Areas: Recreation, National Landscape Conservation System, Fire, Hazardous Materials, Planning, and Law Enforcement.

Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum (IM) clarifies policy and procedures related to processing, reviewing, and implementing temporary closures or temporary restriction orders on the National System of Public Lands. This is necessary to ensure that proper authorities are used and Federal Register notices are approved and published in a timely manner.

Policy/Action: All State and Field Offices must process closure and restriction orders in accordance with the policies and procedures contained in this guidance. States may develop supplemental procedures to implement this guidance as necessary.

1. Temporary Closures and Restrictions Using 43 CFR Subpart 8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR Subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 43 CFR Subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties)
Temporary closure or restriction orders are enacted at the discretion of the authorized officer to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands and resources. A closure or restriction order should be considered only after other management strategies and alternatives have been explored including, but not limited to, increased law enforcement, cooperative efforts with local governments and organizations, engineering (e.g., fencing, barriers, or trail improvements), education, and outreach. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policy limits the duration of temporary closure or restriction orders to 24 months or less.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is required prior to the BLM closing the public lands to certain uses or restricting specific uses of the public lands under the authorities of 43 CFR § 8364.1, 8351.2-1, and 6302.19. Most closures and restrictions implemented by the BLM fall into these categories.

Adequate NEPA analysis and documentation for temporary closures and restrictions may include:
Categorical Exclusions (CX)
Environmental Assessments (EA)
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) (i.e., specific closure decisions adopted in a completed Resource Management Plan)

A Determination of NEPA Adequacy can also be used to document that the contemplated action has been adequately covered in an existing NEPA document.

2. Temporary Closures Mandated by 43 CFR Subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use)

Under 43 CFR § 8341.2(a), the BLM is authorized to immediately close affected areas when
off-road vehicles, “are causing or will cause considerable adverse effect upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources”. NEPA analysis is not required prior to the closure being issued in the case of an emergency as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR §1506.11. However, NEPA analysis must be completed in a timely manner after the action has been taken in order to disclose the effects and determine remedial activities. This analysis must define the rational basis of the closure, and must be prepared in consultation with the CEQ, through the Division of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA (Washington Office [WO]-210). Attachment 1, Planning and National Environmental Policy Act Considerations, explores these requirements in greater depth.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) closures should rarely rely on the post-closure NEPA compliance discussed above. 43 CFR 8341.2 authorizes immediate closures, but state and field offices still have the obligation to explore other management strategies and alternatives before implementing closures and restrictions. A manager intending to use the provisions of 43 CFR § 8341.2 to close or restrict areas to OHV use without completing NEPA in advance of the action should first consult with WO-210, Attn: Branch Chief, Planning, to determine if the situation requiring correction constitutes an emergency action. In most circumstances, managers are aware of OHV problems well in advance of confronting a “considerable adverse effect”, and can either take timely actions to reduce the impacts of OHV use or conduct a NEPA analysis with public participation before implementing a closure and restriction.

3. Duration and Scope of Temporary Closures or Restrictions

The BLM policy requires that temporary closures or restrictions must be 24 months or less in duration. If the justification for a closure or restriction order has not been addressed within the 24-month period, a new temporary closure or restriction order must be established in accordance with this IM. Temporary closures and restrictions should be implemented for the shortest time and in the smallest area necessary to protect resources, public health, and safety.

4. Long-Term or Permanent Closures and Restrictions

Long-term or permanent closures and restrictions that are longer than 24 months in duration must be accomplished in accordance with NEPA and land use planning requirements.

5. Emergency Actions

In the event of an emergency, immediate actions, such as a closure or restriction of uses of the public lands, must be taken to prevent or reduce risk to public health or safety, property, or important resources. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1506.11) provide that in an emergency, “alternative arrangements” may be established to comply with NEPA. Alternative arrangements do not waive the requirement to comply with NEPA, but establish an alternative means for compliance. Alternative arrangements are limited to the actions necessary to control the immediate effects of the emergency. Thereafter, other than those actions that can be categorically excluded, the decision-maker must contact WO-210, Attn: Branch Chief, Planning, to determine what subsequent actions are necessary.

The BLM NEPA handbook (H-1790-1, Sec. 2.3) defines the following actions as typical emergency actions:

* cleanup of a hazardous material spill;
* fire suppression activities related to ongoing wildland fires; and
* emergency stabilizations actions following wildland fires or other disasters.

Emergencies are unforeseen events of such severity that they require immediate action to avoid dire consequences. Typical closures and restrictions imposed in response to known or planned events occurring on public lands, or long-occurring activities such as target shooting, OHV use, camping, parking, or other similar uses are not considered emergencies. A Federal Register notice drafted for a temporary closure should not be referred to as an “emergency closure”.

6. Authorities

Please see Attachment 2, which includes a list of appropriate authorities available to temporarily close and restrict specified uses on public lands, the requirements for NEPA compliance, and the process for establishing closure and restriction orders.

7. State and Washington Office Review

All temporary closure and restriction orders must be approved by the State Director before submission to the Washington Office, preferably 3 months in advance of the restriction. Closure and restriction orders established under 43 CFR § 8364.1 or 43 CFR § 6302.19 require publication in the Federal Register.

8. Format for Federal Register and Closure Notices

Attachment 3 provides Federal Register notice closure procedures, a template for Federal Register closure or restriction notices, and a briefing paper template. Publication in the Federal Register is required prior to the effective date of the closure or restriction.

Closure and restriction orders submitted for review and approval must be accompanied by a briefing paper, maps, aerial, or other photos showing geographic areas and affected resources, along with other supporting documentation that would help reviewers understand the need for the action.

9. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Obligations and Coordination with the Federal Land Hunting, Fishing, and Shooting Sports Roundtable

Closure and restriction orders that may affect hunting access, shooting sport activities, or the discharge of firearms must be in compliance with the Federal Land Hunting, Fishing and Shooting Sports Roundtable MOU. This MOU requires notification of the action to shooting organizations and alerts them to public comment opportunities.

Timeframe: This policy is effective immediately.

Budget Impact: None.

Background: As resource use and demands for public access have increased, so has the need for the BLM to temporarily close or restrict areas to certain uses in order to protect resources, public health, and safety. However, it is important that closure and restriction orders are established only after other management strategies and alternatives have been explored, and it is determined that a closure or restriction order is necessary. Closures and restrictions need to be established in accordance with applicable authorities, and Department of the Interior and BLM policies and procedures.

Manuals/Handbook Sections Affected: None.

Coordination: Development of this policy was coordinated with the Renewable Resources Directorate, the Division of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, the Office of the Solicitor, the Office of Law Enforcement and Security, the Office of National Landscape Conservation System and Community Partnerships and the Division of Regulatory Affairs.

Contact: Any questions or concerns may be directed to Andy Tenney, Chief, Branch of Planning and Resources, Recreation and Visitor Services Division at 202-912-7094.

Signed by: Authenticated by:
Robert V. Abbey Robert M. Williams
Director Division of IRM Governance,WO-560

3 Attachments
1 - Planning and Environmental Policy Act Considerations (2 pp)
2 - Authorities and Purposes for Temporary Closures, Recreation and NLCS (1p)
3 - Template for Federal Register Closure Notices and (5 pp)


Last updated: 12-18-2009
USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader®


http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regula ... 0-028.html

MMM
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by MMM » Thu May 20, 2010 5:24 pm

PITD what sandman is talking about is not the same thing you posted on. There is no NEPA process inolved, instead and I quote "Currently in this area, there is a lawsuit pending and a settlement proposal will restrict use on designated trails to street legal vehicles only." This is some folk sueing to close areas to non-street legal OHVs. When the BLM closes an area after going through the correct process, in which you have public comments, then fine, close an area. But do it legaly.

Mike

Mike C.
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:53 am

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by Mike C. » Thu May 20, 2010 10:48 pm

MMM, I have to disagree with you. Sandman was right on point as YES, common sense required. Where is this so called "knee jerk" crap mentioned? I don't recall Sandman dwelling on that. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I understood his position on the subject. Mike C.

Sandman
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:06 pm

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by Sandman » Fri May 21, 2010 6:41 am

The court has ruled the BLM did not follow NEPA when developing the WEMO route network. Instead, they used a process called "the decision tree" to assess and develop the route network. Much of it was illegal route proliferation burned in after the California Desert District was formed in 1980. Unfortunatly, there has been alot more new illegal route proliferation in some areas and the court is now assessing damages and working toward solutions.

I pulled this link off the District37AMA webstie where someone has linked a copy of court documents in the first post. Read the court documents and then decide if this has anything to do with NEPA
http://www.district37ama.org/forums/sho ... hp?t=37607

My own personal feelings is it's a shame the OHV riding public cannont seem to get a grip on following legal routes of travel in limited use areas. I see way too much damage in this area as a result of these actions and it's us responsible public land users who must suffer the consequences of the scoflaws. From my own personal observations, there are more than a few. This is why I believe educational videos like the one in this thread are a step in the right direction.

MMM
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by MMM » Fri May 21, 2010 5:25 pm

I used the term "knee jerk reaction" because it seems today if you do not like what a agency does, you simple sue. I am sure a lot of time was spent on WEMO, yet all it takes is a liberal judge and people like CBD and Sierra club to toss the whole thing out. This is NOT an isolated case. The Imperial Sand Dunes has had a few RAMPS (Management Plans) that courts have thrown out. Areas are being closed to mechinized use, not by management plans, but through litigation. As far as anyone riding illeagaly, I am horse saying go after them with the full effect of the law. I am just sick and tired of areas being closed off by a very vocal and well funded bunch of people who have more desire to control the public lands than to really protect them. Install fences, barriers and such just as the report PITD posted says. Close off staging areas to make it more difficult for people to off load illegaly. But to simply sue and try and keep all non-street legal OHVs out of an area is, in my mind, knee jerk. That means, take the easy way out, 'Kick" out everyone who "May" be involved. But mark my words. People who break laws do not care and will find ways to do their thing regardelss. All you will do by closing off these areas is punish the legal and lawfull rider.

Mike

User avatar
Mrs.Oroblanco
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:40 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by Mrs.Oroblanco » Fri May 21, 2010 11:23 pm

Honestly,

This discussion is as old as the hills themselves.

As long as we have had "friends of" groups, there has not been one rational decision. And its not just about off-road vehicles. The "friends of" name that I use can be substituted by any other name or names - the deal comes out the same.
Save the desert by not letting anyone set foot in it. Save the water by never letting anyone in the water. Save the animals (just name one - any one, someone wants to save them) - and they ALL want to do it their way. Then there is the other side - they don't want to save anything. Nobody ever meets in the middle - someone is always unhappy, and then they talk about "compromises" - which means - somebody loses. The "saviors" want nobody, except themselves, that is, to use whatever they want to save. The other side hasn't got the sense god gave them, and they do stupid things ON PURPOSE, to show that THEY count, too.

What's worse, is that both sides lie about the circumstances. Private individuals lie about how much they are annoyed, but yet, they are as annoying as anyone on the other side. They want their private land to extend over the millions of public acres. That's why they buy land that borders some kind of public land - they want the public land to themselves, and for themselves. The people who don't border public land, go to the public land to do what they cannot do on their own private land. (part of that is the fault of the laws of covenants and restrictions in land sales - you know, the people who sell you a parcel of property with all the "ifs ands and buts" on them - you will paint your house this color, it won't be taller than "this" high, you cannot build on half of it - you can only build certain types of houses, you cannot block your neighbors views (?) ----

We have become a society that insists on shoving our thoughts, wants and beliefs on every other person in the world.
Nobody has privacy anymore. Nobody can do any of the things they like anymore, unless society approves. We have to approve what people do with their bodies, what they do in their marriages, what they want in their religions - I mean, PLEASE - how can we possibly work out something as complicated as "this land is YOUR land, this land is MY land", if we cannot even let someone have the color and size house they want????????????? And God forbid if your car dies in your yard and you have to leave it there until you can save up the money to fix it. When you buy private land these days, you are nothing but a tenant who has the privilege of paying taxes on the land while someone else tells you what you can do with it. With this mindset - how could we ever work out the concept of the co-ownership of public land?

Beth (Mrs.O)

Sandman
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:06 pm

Re: Friends of Jawbone Canyon educational video

Post by Sandman » Sun May 23, 2010 12:25 am

Mrs Oroblanco, I sincerely hope you are not implying I am lying about what is happening in the desert around my home. The BLM is my neighbor and sometimes it is quite difficult to address and find solutions to the problems involving the motorized recreational users who do not own property or live in the area.


Here is a link you might find useful in determining the overall picture of the BLM management plan for the Western Mojave

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ ... _Mojav.PDF

The testimony of individuals to the court are not fabricated in any way and are backed up with photographs and gps coordinates. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it to the court Mrs Oroblanco on behalf of the defendants and link us up to the filed documents. The folks at District37ama have provided a link for the public to read and I urge you and others to do so. Some of the people providing declarations in these court documents include former BLM employees of the California Desert District and the Barstow Field office in particular. They have an extensive and professional knowledge of the area and hold degrees in their fields of expertise.http://www.district37ama.org/forums/sho ... hp?t=37607

Mrs Oroblanco wrote:
"What's worse, is that both sides lie about the circumstances. Private individuals lie about how much they are annoyed, but yet, they are as annoying as anyone on the other side. They want their private land to extend over the millions of public acres. That's why they buy land that borders some kind of public land - they want the public land to themselves, and for themselves."

This is your opinion and I respect your right to voice it Mrs Oroblanco but unfortunatly it does not reflect the truth

Being a longtime land owner stakeholder in the area, I personally supplied a few comment letters illustrating my concerns about the WEMO route network in my area and unfortunately, many of the negative effects of illegal OHV use in the area have come true. Personally, I do not intend to sit back and watch the destruction of the scenic beauty that inspired me to buy land in what was then a remote area. Enough is enough already. I didn't just buy land in this area recently and my ownership dates back into the 1970s. I dont pretend to own or control the public lands. My only motive is advocacy for responsible and respectful use by all user groups.

Post Reply