WEMO scoping scedule

[Wayne_Nosala]

WEMO under the lawsuit ruling the judge has ordered the route
inventory re done and scoping has began

Here is the schedule , BLM has broken it down to different sections

>
> Below is the updated list of WEMO public meetings with dates, times
> and locations. A news release is expected this week. Attached is a
> map of the eight Travel Management Zones that will be discussed at
> each meeting.
>
> Jan 9, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, BLM Barstow Field Office
> Zone 1: I-15 to I- 40, Afton, Broadwell, E of Barstow
>
> Jan 18, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, Kerr-McGee Center
> Zone 2: N. Ridgecrest: N. Searles, S. Searles, Darwin, and Sierra
>
> Jan 26, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, BLM Barstow Field Office
> Zone 3: South and East of SR 247, Juniper, Rattlesnake, Joshua Tree,
> Wonder Valley
>
> Feb 6, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, Kerr-McGee Center
> Zone 4: Jawbone, Middle Knob, Lancaster
>
> Feb 9, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, BLM Barstow Field Office
> Zone 5: N of I-15/SR 58 DWMA ACEC in Barstow FO (7 sub regions)
>
> Feb 14, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, BLM Barstow Field Office
> Zone 6: S of SR 58 / W of I-15: El Mirage, Kramer Hills, And Iron Mtn
>
> Feb 16, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, Kerr-McGee Center
> Zone 7: Ridgecrest, El Paso, Red Mtn, Rand Mtns
>
> Feb 21, 2012, 4:00 - 7:00 pm, BLM Barstow Field Office
> Zone 8: S of I 140/E. of I -15 Pisgah, Ord Mtn, Newberry-Roadman,
> Johnson Valley, Stoddard
>

SRP has us pretty busy, So I can only hit a couple of these in the Ridgecrest district

Our main battle via comments is travel on marked trails only is simply not
hold merit, there are too many confusing checkerboard private sections
in the CDD that cannot be either marked or enforced correctly per that rule

Other than that, if you know of a trail you lost the last go around that has historic
value, try to amend it in to the new plan ASAP via comments or attend meeting
in your area of interest

Wayne Nosala

[SPONSOR]

Membership in the largest desert racing community has its advantages - Participate in Forum Discussions - Send and Receive Private Messages - Maintain Public Photo Albums - Access to Groups - User Profile in our Social Network - Increased Access to more Sub Forums - Reduced Online Advertisements Join our community today

[Bro_Gill]

Wayne- I was thinking about this the other day. I hate to see all the work done back then tossed out with the time, energy and money spent by us. I was at the Barstow meeting a couple months ago. Seems this is being driven by wording in the plan, not actual ground work done by us. Then I got to thinking. When we did WEMO back in '2000+, at the second meeting, the Vice President of the Sierra Club was there as well as some other big wigs from the green groups. During the beginning of the meeting, one of the greens was making a comment/complaint about the process being used and the Sierra Club VP said, "Don't worry, we are going to sue to stop the plan." This was before the process to be used to create the plan plan was even determined. It got me thinking. Many of the folks who were hired by the BLM to work on the plan and come up with the rules, regs, and measures to protect the various things the plan was meant for were also members of the groups that sued. Sierra Club, CBD, PEER, etc... Has anyone looked into a possible conflict of interest in this suit? The greens seemed to already know what they were gonna sue about before the plan was even started. Seems awful coincidental to me. Is it something we can pursue?

[Wayne_Nosala]

Our biggest victory to date on this is all those enviro interests wanted licence plate only
motorized travel in areas designated "Limited use"

They lost on that one, So honestly I dont know what their next move is going to be from their end

all they can do is file another lawsuit, and as you know, this past one took many years and really
hit them hard in the pocket book, because unlike the lawsuits against the state, I do not believe
they can recover their legal fees since they really did not enjoy a major victory on this.

Sorry, I really dont have an answer on that.

Regarding future of this, we can possibly amend in historic routes we lost the first time around
I think it was Ed who said we lost something like 8000 miles of trails outside of the open areas,
a lot of them were redundant double routes, but they were loses nevertheless.

Another thing I think we have going for us, the DAC has some advisory pull on all this, and
these days the DAC is pretty OHV heavy, its something I think we have to our advantage

One thing we dont have is a lot of public participation in this process, we need people
who know thier areas well to go to the workshops and lobby for reasonable trails we lost last time

I personally dont know San Bernadino east of Husky monument much, so im not much help
there, you and some others from that area can be of use, I would not expect much gound
gained in the areas that the anti groups are not satisfied, Juniper flats, Edwards bowls,
Wonder Valley residences will be there to fight BLM designated trails and compliance issues

Those are the people who signed onto the lawsuit

Stuff in those areas have urban anti OHV people, and thats were I suspect we will lose ground

But we CAN maybe gain ground in others since some biological data is now so far out
of date, they can use it against us, Mojave Ground squirrel has been delisted as Endangered, I think
it went down to threatened

The new energy plan may play play into this heavy, look into DRECP, CORVA is heavy involved in this process,
in some case DRECP will completely override WEMO in some areas.

There are some nuts and bolts of the issue as far as my fuzzy little brain can come up with, other
than that, we need area experts to lobby for trails, so go to the work-group meetings on that list
if you see something on there you can be of assistance or contribute

Thanks

Wayne

[Bro_Gill]

Don't forget that Feinstein is still pushing to lock up another 1 million, yes MILLION acres into another desert preserve. This preserve WILL force the military west into Johnson Valley if it passes. That should be a bargaining tool into any new restrictions or openings into use of any land in the 'new' WEMO plan and should be played that way. I still can't help but think a few of the BLM and Contract Biologists were influential in the wording of the first plan that gave the Greens their basis for the suit.

[Wayne_Nosala]

I worked on the F bill, got most of the current WEMO routes cherry stemmed in the areas they overlap WEMO, That bill
covers east of barstow to Colorado river. CORVA does not support it in its current form. I would have more faith in it if we
actually gained ground, all it really does for us is keep our open areas in perpetuity, Not including JV takeover.

DRECP will play more interesting effect that the F bill

Also Kevin McCarthy actually has a bill in the works that would really smack down the F bill if it moves quicker through the sausage grinder

Wayne