Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The California Association Of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs Is Opposed To S2921
GlamisDunes.com > Sand Community Issues > Glamis Issues
TomJeeps
QUOTE
Subject: S2921 - Cal4wdc Position


From Cal 4 Wheel:

S2921 The California Desert Protection Act of 2010 ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ___ ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ The California Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs, Inc. is the largest 4WD organization in the state of California representing over 8,000 family members. CA4WDC works to maintain access to public lands and promotes responsible use of those lands. CA4WDC is based in Sacramento and has three districts to serve the state. CA4WDC was founded in 1959 and has over 50 years of service to the OHV community. 8120 36th Avenue Sacramento, CA 95824-2304 (800) 4x4-Funn www.cal4wheel. com

Issue:

If enacted the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 (S2921) will:

• Create the Mojave Trails National Monument containing ~941,000 acres.

• Create the Sand to Snow National Monument containing ~134,000 acres.

• Set aside a minimum of 200,000 acres as "mitigation lands" to provide for alternative energy projects. This will likely exclude recreation in these areas.

• Add ~90,000 acres to Death Valley National Park

• Create new wilderness areas totaling ~300,000 acres in BLM, USFS, and NPS managed Lands

• NOT protect Johnson Valley from the Marine Corps expansion.

 

This bill WILL have an adverse effect on recreation opportunities and public access in California. Access for mining, recreation, and other uses will be curtailed. While not yet fully understood, it is believed that at least 400 miles of roads in the new wilderness areas and monuments will be closed.

Supporters of the bill state that Rasor OHV Area, Stoddard Wells OHV Area, El Mirage OHV Area, Spangler Hills OHV Area, and a portion of the Johnson Valley OHV Area are all slated to receive a congressional designation as OHV areas. It can be argued as to what this means as these areas are already OHV areas, and there is no guarantee that they will remain open and unaffected. There is also no compensation for the areas that will be closed.

CA4WDC Position:

The California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs is OPPOSED to S2921 in its present form. We oppose legislation that restricts the public’s access to public lands. We oppose the creation of new wilderness areas and National Monuments that withdraw lands from public access and close existing routes. We oppose the creation of new wilderness areas that do not meet the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. We also oppose legislation that attempts to indiscriminately close any area or route of travel without verification of the economic impact to the area.

Contacts / Additional information:

Harry Baker Robert Reed

(818)705-3930 (925)784-4702

bakerhab@aol. com robertreed5@ comcast.net



Terry Work - President
Point Mugu 4x4
tpwork@yahoo. com
No To S2921





__._,_.___Attachment(s) from Terry Work

1 of 1 File(s)
APHANTOMDUCK
On the surface, the proposal looks good for motorized recreation and access.

But the "devil is in the details"!

The two major issues I have with the proposal is that of the mandated management plans for the open areas and the alternative energy mitigation land bank.

In place today are management plans for each of the existing open areas. They seem to work well.

Once the NEPA process is opened-up for each of these areas, we run a high risk of losing more land by the pressure and potential litigation of groups like CBD.

I'm hearing that some of the enviro groups don't like this bill from a number of perspectives including the OHV protections.

The mitigation land banks are problematic also. My reading of the proposal shows that these land banks, when identified as offset for alternative energy projects (read listed species - ESA), become exclusive for the mitigation rational (read closed for all uses) and we could lose hundereds of thousands of additional acreage and motorized access.

I'm told that ASA has supported this legislation. Perhaps someone from ASA could fill us in on this if indeed this is true.

Considering this legislation, at this moment, does not include dune areas... it does not make sense to me to support such a proposal.


Crusty
Per Tomjeeps on the ASA Board...

QUOTE
ORBA, Eco Logic, D-37, ASA and SDORC according to Fred Wiley support S2921
TomJeeps
Unfortunately this is second hand information from the last Commission meeting, I consider it credible but don't expect any transcripts to be released any time soon, so far ASA has released a support statement and so has D37. Also none of the Org's named have denied supporting this bill, it also appears a user got Banned on the D37 BBS for posting basically what I did here, so looking like a sensitive subject with some supporters...TJ
Doc
ASA Position

Crusty
Thanks Doc!
APHANTOMDUCK
QUOTE (Doc @ Mar 24 2010, 11:51 AM) *


The wording on this is unclear. From what I read ASA has supported Eco Logic's position on the bill and not the bill itself.

To be more clear, has ASA sent a letter of support to this proposal to Senator Diane Feinstien?
APHANTOMDUCK
From the Press Enterprise today...

The bolded text demonstrates my concerns about the legislative proposal have good foundation as now the state is involved in much the same thing.

The question is: Is this effort going to take additional mitigation lands on top of the Di Fi proposal?

QUOTE
10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, March 23, 2010

By JANET ZIMMERMAN
The Press-Enterprise


Environmentalists, developers and government officials started work Tuesday on a blueprint that would speed up clean-energy development while minimizing damage to the environment.

"If we do it right here, it's likely to be a model for the country," said Robert Copper of the state's Natural Resources Agency. He is overseeing development of the state's Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

The plan will identify areas where development and preservation will occur on public land in southeastern California. But creating the plan will take as long as four years, he said.

Projects already under way will not be held up, but those that come later will be permitted in several days instead of years, Copper said. He led Tuesday's meeting that brought together 40 people at the Mission Inn in Riverside.

Projects won't be prohibited from the most environmentally sensitive areas, though developers will have to abide by rules in the plan established by core interest groups, including representatives of seven counties, the Sierra Club and California Wind Energy Association.

"It's a long time in coming and absolutely necessary," said Kim Delfino, state representative for Defenders of Wildlife in Sacramento.

Driving the project is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's executive order to streamline the state's approval process for renewable energy projects and increase California's generation of wind, solar and geothermal energy production to 33 percent by 2020.

The governor on Monday signed an order allowing developers to contribute to a fund to pay for habitat lost during construction instead of requiring them to buy replacement land. Schwarzenegger also is promoting a renewable-energy conference at UC Riverside today.

Tribe Has Concerns

Outside Tuesday's meeting, a Native American group dedicated to protecting sacred sites protested projects that they say would destroy cultural resources.

Members of La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Council in Blythe said several pending solar projects there threaten ancient trails and geoglyphs etched into the desert floor.

Known as the Blythe giant intaglios, they include an image of the Native American creator Kokopilli, which is 200 feet tall and 50 feet wide, and one of the spirit Cicimitl that covers 10 square yards. Those and trails leading to ancient rock art at McCoy Springs are in the footprint of the proposed Blythe project by Solar Millennium, said Alfredo Figueroa, a Chemehuevi Indian.

"We are the guardians for these sites," he said.

Figueroa said his group wasn't allowed to participate in the meeting, but officials made a point of saying tribal input and information about cultural resources are encouraged.

The Department of Fish and Game has developed a preliminary map of areas that could be appropriate for renewable energy development, because they have fewer sensitive plant and animal species.

The area of desert between Interstates 10 and 40, around Joshua Tree National Park, was not included; a section from Palm Springs south to the Salton Sea and Imperial County was.

But officials cautioned that the maps are just a starting point.

Mark Tholke, southwest region director for EnXco, a wind and solar development firm with several projects pending, urged the group to move quickly and keep a narrow focus.

Tholke said he is competing with co-workers in his own company who are developing projects in states such as Iowa, Texas and Oklahoma, where permitting is easier.

"If we don't inject a sense of urgency in this process, we risk negative impacts on our climate change policy," he said. "We're all in this together."
TomJeeps
QUOTE (APHANTOMDUCK @ Mar 24 2010, 02:50 PM) *
QUOTE (Doc @ Mar 24 2010, 11:51 AM) *


The wording on this is unclear. From what I read ASA has supported Eco Logic's position on the bill and not the bill itself.

To be more clear, has ASA sent a letter of support to this proposal to Senator Diane Feinstien?


Well is this a spectator sport or a public process, rather than arguing over the need to support it or not, why not help us with some suggestions for comments, based on things that are good for us and should stay, and things that could hurt us that should be removed and/or changed...TJ
APHANTOMDUCK
QUOTE (TomJeeps @ Mar 26 2010, 04:53 PM) *
QUOTE (APHANTOMDUCK @ Mar 24 2010, 02:50 PM) *
QUOTE (Doc @ Mar 24 2010, 11:51 AM) *


The wording on this is unclear. From what I read ASA has supported Eco Logic's position on the bill and not the bill itself.

To be more clear, has ASA sent a letter of support to this proposal to Senator Diane Feinstien?


Well is this a spectator sport or a public process, rather than arguing over the need to support it or not, why not help us with some suggestions for comments, based on things that are good for us and should stay, and things that could hurt us that should be removed and/or changed...TJ


See post # 2 of this thread.
TomJeeps
Was not directing that comment at you DUCK, you where asking ASA to clarify their position I'm suggesting Org's such as ASA need to expand on your post #2, rather than refine a position statement...TJ
TomJeeps
QUOTE
Cal 4x4 reads this thread daily, trust me. Why don't they respond now? Defend your position, please, or at least explain your tactic or goal? Why didn't you shape this bill to our benefit when you had the chance? I saw you at the table with Feinsteins Staffers, you had their ear, hearts and minds! Your walking away from the table got us not one inch of land in 1994. I say no, hell no, not this time. At least we have a fighting chance to save some of it. It's not the Democrats taking our lands. It's developers, Energy companies, the military. Lets get Congressional protection now!


From a D37 Officer on another BBS, I can understand the temptation in the last sentience however, I did not think what the AMA was doing behind closed doors in 1994 was anything to be proud of...TJ
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.