Sen. Feinstein reintroduces desert protection act

[FishPOET]

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/r...gy-desert.html

[nwoods]

Hmmm... doesn't seem too bad on the face of it, but....

[sarah]

Start hammering your city and county governments about this right now. Last year, the town of Apple Valley supported it.

And what new "safety and protection" bill sounds bad? Of course they make it sound great - that's what they're good at.

[mrthieba]

"designating four areas in the California desert currently used for off highway vehicle use as permanent".

My translation:
four areas that you currently use, we will let you continue to use. Thousands of other acres that you currently use, you will no longer be able to use.

[sarah]

"designating four areas in the California desert currently used for off highway vehicle use as permanent".

My translation:
four areas that you currently use, we will let you continue to use. Thousands of other acres that you currently use, you will no longer be able to use.

Yeap, and what's really "permanent," anyway? Permanent until they make them un-permanent with the stroke of a pen. LOL

[curtis]

I don't trust anything that BLACK WIDOW REINTRODUCES.

[mkjeepers]

[COLOR="Blue"]I sent her a letter awhile back and got this form letter responce. I wasn't addressing the wind powered energy, but on the closing of open lands. it's a lot of reading though.[/COLOR]


Thank you for writing to share your concerns about the "California Desert Protection Act of 2010" and express your support for expanding renewable energy development in the California desert. I appreciate hearing your thoughts about this issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.



I share your support for renewable energy development, but I am concerned that some of the sites being considered for renewable energy projects will lead to the destruction of some of the most pristine areas in the California desert. I believe renewable energy projects should move forward on public and private lands within the California desert that are well suited for energy development. Priority should be given to projects on lands that have previously been disturbed by other uses and do not provide critical habitat to threatened or endangered species. I am also committed to addressing permitting problems that delay permits for solar projects on disturbed private lands, which I believe are better sites for solar projects than pristine Federal lands.



As you may know, following the passage of the Desert Protection Act of 1994, I worked with the Department of the Interior, the Wildlands Conservancy and Catellus – the real estate division of the Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation – to develop a plan to conserve pristine land in the Mojave Desert. The Catellus agreement relied on the use of more than $40 million in private donations from The Wildlands Conservancy and $18 million in Federal conservation funds to purchase more than 600,000 acres, and demonstrated a clear intent to preserve these lands in perpetuity.



I believe that the Federal government must honor that commitment. That is why on December 21, 2009, I introduced the "California Desert Protection Act of 2010" (S. 2921). This comprehensive bill designates new lands in the Mojave Desert for conservation, enhances recreational opportunities, and streamlines the federal permitting process to advance large-scale wind and solar development in the Mojave Desert. In my view, conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California Desert, and I believe that this bill strikes a balance between these sometimes competing uses.



Please know that I appreciate hearing your concerns about this bill, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue working to encourage energy development on more suitable lands within the California desert. For your review, I have attached my Congressional Record statement on the introduction of S. 2921. The bill text and relevant maps can be found online at http://feinstein.senate.gov (search keywords: "California Desert Protection Act 2010").



Again, thank you for writing. If you have further questions or comments, please visit contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

[nwoods]

A member of my Land Rover club is very active in the land management issues. He currently represents CORVA on the DRECP Stakeholder Group as one of only two representatives for recreation among a body of 50+ enviros, renewable developers, and local, state and federal agency reps. The goal is to craft a desert-wide conservation plan for renewable energy development in the desert by mid-2012 -- hence the DRECP: Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

He worked with and support Fienstien's original bill, with the exception of the provisions for renewable energy. Now those provisions have been removed. In his own words, "It is not a perfect bill, and there are still valid arguments against the bill. However, early on in 2009 I gave the Wilderness Coalition and Feinstein's Office a list of some two-dozen requests regarding problems I had with the bill. Now, with the dropping of the energy section, they have given me EVERYTHING I've asked. Therefore, I do expect to support the bill and work for its passage after I review and confirm my understanding about this new version."

The following is his synopsis of the original bill (not the new one), prepared at the request of Congressman Kevin McCarthy's office:


S. 2921 - Desert Protection Act of 2010 (v1) Positives and Negatives

NATIONAL MONUMENTS
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Allows for continued current recreational uses, including the designated route network
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Allows the use of off-highway vehicles for commercial touring
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Temporary Advisory Committee includes reps for motorized recreation, hunting and rockhounding
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Lands withdrawn from energy development and mining
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Requires new management plans that could close routes, further restricting recreational access.
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Allows public utility energy transport facilities within rights-of-way
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] No guarantees against future route closures for T&E species, air quality, etc.
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] National Monuments restrict multiple use of federal lands.

WILDERNESS AREAS
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] All but ~14 miles of designated routes accommodated by motorized corridors and boundary alignments
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] In some cases, undesignated routes reopened via corridors
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Fully releases southern portion of Soda Mountains WSA
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Closes ~14 miles of designated motorized routes, and untold miles of undesignated routes
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Route setback within corridors is insufficient to allow future reroutes due to storm damage, which may result in future closures
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] No guarantees against future route closures for T&E species, air quality, etc.

OHV RECREATION AREAS
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Congressional designation is superior and potentially longer lasting than current administrative designations
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Prohibits residential and commercial development within, including mining and energy facilities
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Secretary can allow development that is not incompatible with OHV recreation
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Orders suitability study of adjacent BLM lands to expand these OHV recreation areas, and authorizes resulting expansion
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Does not prohibit development of transmission line rights-of-way
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] No alternative OHV areas to offset huge losses from Marine Corps expansion into Johnson Valley
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] No guarantees against future closure for T&E species, air quality, etc.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Segments of Amargosa River not expected to affect Dumont Dunes OHV Recreation Area
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Loss of a ~9 mile designated route now under temporary closure (Surprise Canyon Road)

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADDITIONS
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]+[/COLOR] Designated routes remain open
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Some current activities would be prohibited, i.e. rock collecting
[COLOR="Red"]–[/COLOR] Affects non-street legal vehicle access to northern Avawatz Mountains

[Roger]

The desert has all the protection it can stand. Enough already...

[mrthieba]

Nat Mon. " No guarantees against future closures.."
"new management plan that could close routes further restricting recreational access" "restrtict multiple use"

Wilderness areas: "no guarantees against future closures.."
"closes untold miles of undesignated routes"

OHV areas: "no guarantees against future closures....."


This is just more of the same B.S. Give you a quarter and take away a dollar. This is just another stepping stone toward closing off all public access to government (OUR) land.

Even if all the negative areas are removed (which they wont be) it is still just another grab for more control by corrupt politicians. The best they could do for our country is to do nothing at all.

CORVA should oppose it.

Roger said it.. Enough already.

[nwoods]

I agree with you in sentiment, but there is another way of looking at this, that might be more effective considering the power players we are up against. We stand to loose more motorized recreation opportunities to renewable energy development & mitigation than we do to the proposed wildernesses and national monuments in the bill. Unless we set aside lands now for motorized dependent recreational activities, as this bill does, we may soon be squeezed out of the desert altogether.

[mrthieba]

If we keep allowing them to take away a thousand acres to protect our right to use one acre, then we surely will be squeezed out of the desert altogether.

[karstic]

I guess 6.3 million acres back in 1994 wasn't enough.

If they want to create more new wilderness fine but make sure it meets the definition of a wilderness. No mining camps, no two tracks, no old army camps no old ranch structures. If an area contains any of these thanit's not a wilderness.