This is the KOH Course map. The actual course is in red. I have overlaid the Twenty Nine Palms Base Expansion Alternative 6 plan that was introduced a couple of months ago.

The part with the green would be permanently closed, the area that is yellow/brown is the "joint use" area.

My scales may not be perfect but it gives you an idea of the future IF the Marines get their way. :(

damn

:(:mad3::mad3:

WTF...:mad3:

:(

That blows

That blows

X100 :mad3:

...as if they don't have enough room to play in their own backyard as it is. :mad3:

They continue to close bases, yet they need more ground. What a bunch of shit.

WHAT?????

I wonder how KOH would be if thats what happens

Can someone hook a color blind guy up?????
I see the course layout and the grid overlay but can't make out the joint use vs the rest.

Even as a blind mofo I can tell this will blow!!!!!!!

Can someone hook a color blind guy up?????
I see the course layout and the grid overlay but can't make out the joint use vs the rest.

Even as a blind mofo I can tell this will blow!!!!!!!


There is a roughly horizontal line kind of in the middle of the 45deg hatching. Below the line is joint use, above the line is no access.

Can someone hook a color blind guy up?????

The cross hatch is the joint use.

What's the next step?

What's the next step?

We are really in a holding pattern until the EIS comes out. The EIS will (should) address all of the comments that were submitted in early 2009. The latest I've heard is that this will be Sept, 2010; it has been delayed twice so far.

The EIS should not only adress the public comments but may narrow down which direction the Marines really want to go; even though they already know what they want to do, they are just going through the motions to follow the official process.

After the EIS comes out, there will be another 90 day public comment period.

Then the process will repeat. There will be a couple of years of this. At that point, they may or may not proceed with expansion plans.

It never hurts to voice your opinions, to your legislators, of how this type of hurts the local economies.

Thanks for keeping this thread up!!

The May 2010 issue ofAutomobile magazine has a story on KOH and also makes note of the expansion. Would it be a good idea to send a letter to the editor of that magazine, regarding the base expansion? The magazine reaches a whole new market for our sport, they were very good in the reports of the race, maybe we can build something off that?

The May 2010 issue ofAutomobile magazine has a story on KOH and also makes note of the expansion. Would it be a good idea to send a letter to the editor of that magazine, regarding the base expansion? The magazine reaches a whole new market for our sport, they were very good in the reports of the race, maybe we can build something off that?

Jeff,

I'll be seeing Harry & Helen Baker this weekend and will bounce this off of them. I think exposure can only be a good thing. Do you have a contact name or do we just go in to the Letter to the Editor with reference to the KOH article?

what:confused:

Expect allot of exposure for the Wheelers for the Wounded Event this Novemeber at the Hammers. We will be taking our wounded vetrens out to play at the Hammeras and give them the repect they deserve.

Kevin Carey

i dont get why the fuck to they need that exact spot/area? they cant shut down random desert closer to barstow:confused:

i dont get why the fuck to they need that exact spot/area? they cant shut down random desert closer to barstow:confused:

You need to look at a bigger map. I don't have a good one to post for you right now. They want this area because it's a big area and it's is right next to the base with nothing in the way. If you look at a bigger map you'd see that Amboy Rd along with some wilderness areas make the east side unappealing to them. They are bound by the 40 on the north, and 247 on the south. Random desert closer to Barstow would not make their base bigger, it's 40-50 miles away. They already have a large expensive infrastructure built right next door to Johnson Valley. They aren't looking to build a new base and they don't want to share with the Army at Ft. Irwin.

and if they get this expansion it gives them the type of terrain that they think they need.

and if they get this expansion it gives them the type of terrain that they think they need.

It's the airspace they are after...

It's the airspace they are after...

That's a new twist that wasn't mentioned last year. What's wrong with the air space to the East?:confused::confused:

That's a new twist that wasn't mentioned last year. What's wrong with the air space to the East?:confused::confused:

From what I was told by a friend who is friends with one of the head Marines in the take over. They need more airspace for jet fighters to come in.
If you look at the link below from the other thread you can see what they have to work with and from what I've been told it's not enough.

It sucks, but if I read your post correctly we should only lose Johson Valley two months out of the year??

If you go to this site, click on the map and drag it over to Johnson valley area, you can see the airspace they have to work with.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.4024013899613,-117.823916132244&chart=24&zoom=

From what I was told by a friend who is friends with one of the head Marines in the take over. They need more airspace for jet fighters to come in.
If you look at the link below from the other thread you can see what they have to work with and from what I've been told it's not enough.

It sucks, but if I read your post correctly we should only lose Johson Valley two months out of the year??

DJ, where did you see the two months out of the year? I'd like to see what exercise they plan on using the extra space for. I assumed it was more room for Mojave Viper....if that is the case, that goes 10-11 times a year for 3 weeks at a time...

DJ, where did you see the two months out of the year? I'd like to see what exercise they plan on using the extra space for. I assumed it was more room for Mojave Viper....if that is the case, that goes 10-11 times a year for 3 weeks at a time...

From this thread...

http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=959704

Joint use means they get 100% when they run excercises; we get it when they are not. If I remeber correctly, exercises would be twice a year for 1 month increments.

From what I was told by a friend who is friends with one of the head Marines in the take over. They need more airspace for jet fighters to come in.
If you look at the link below from the other thread you can see what they have to work with and from what I've been told it's not enough.

It sucks, but if I read your post correctly we should only lose Johson Valley two months out of the year??


From what I understand, we would lose thee stuff in yellow for two months out of the year and the land in green permanently including aftershock and outerlimits. If this happens, I could see KOH going away.:(

It sucks, but if I read your post correctly we should only lose Johson Valley two months out of the year??

My comment was in reference to ONLY the joint use area. The other area outlined in the map would be gone for good.

My comment about the 2 months a year was from the memory. I haven't had a chance to look over the EIS. But they previously were talking about needing the extra space for ground exercises.

If they take the area for "limited use" we wil not get it back. They will use the excuse there is live rounds out there and it's not safe. JMHO

If they take the area for "limited use" we wil not get it back. They will use the excuse there is live rounds out there and it's not safe. JMHO

Sounds as though they want that area for air space. That and it's to close to houses to land any rounds in that area.

If they need it for airspace and not exercises why can't we wheel there? Are they afraid there planes will bother us?:laughing:

This is the map directy from the 29 Palms website:
http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/LAS/Documents/LandSpace/10-0676_ALT06_1-592K_8.5x11_20100506-tjw.pdf

If you go there it's "Alternative 6" and you can get it in the PDF. The air space also has to do with the air delivered ordnance they plan on putting down there. Currently when jets are working in the training area because of the speed at which they are going sometimes they can not turn around fast enough to stay completely "inbounds". When you have a lot of aircraft working the same area it gets much harder to manage from the ground which is one of the training requirements being worked on for deployments to theatre. The reason that area would be "off-limits" is because it would recieve air and ground delivered ordnance at some point. "Train how we fight". The dual use area would be a "no fire" area that would remain open most of the year with advanced notice published for closures.

Mike

DON'T THEY HAVE THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST FOR THIS #@$!.:mad3:

"Train how we fight".

Mike

Including collateral damage? There are houses very close to this proposed new border.

I believe that we (OHV area users, local residents and businesses) still endorse that the Marines "Go East". Plenty of air space over there and virtually no impact on civilians.

Under their preferred alternative (#6), we lose 108,530 acres in Johnson Valley forever. Rockpile gone. Those great race courses gone. North part of The Hammers gone.

They would also take an additional 38,137 acres but make that available for our use for ten months/year. This includes Mean Lake, Melville Lake and some of the Hammers.

They also want to expand to the southeast and pick up 21,304 acres there just north of Wonder Valley. How do the people that live there feel about that?

The total acquired by USMC under that "preferred" alternative would be 167,971 acres.

They want to make some big changes to the airspace too, and I'm sure the FAA probably isn't very happy right now either.

Including collateral damage? There are houses very close to this proposed new border.


I found this on page 2-12 of the Draft EIS. It's one of their eight "screening criteria" that they used to come up with "reasonable, viable" alternatives they analyzed:


8. Provide for at least 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) of buffer area between live-fire areas (including SDZs and WDZs) and any proposed or existing installation boundary in accordance with the established Combat Center safety policy (Combat Center Order P3500.4H).

Just had this link come over in an email today, don't know if it's been posted yet: http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_expansion26.23407cb.html

Looks like they might have an open comment time right now or coming up? Unless I read it wrong... I can't help but wonder if comments even help:confused:

Just had this link come over in an email today, don't know if it's been posted yet: http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_expansion26.23407cb.html

Looks like they might have an open comment time right now or coming up? Unless I read it wrong... I can't help but wonder if comments even help:confused:

90 day public comment period. If you make meaningful comments or questions they have to address them. However that doesn't mean it will change anything.

Funding for a base expansion isn't a sure thing either, even if it gets the green light.

... I can't help but wonder if comments even help:confused:
I know this is frustrating, but the one single thing that we can guarantee will lose our rights is if we quit. On the other hand, if you send a substantive letter during the comment period, there is a chance that you can have positive effect.... IMHO, that chance is worth following up on.

Randii

then fly over our damn heads like they do at the sand dunes. the dont need rocks to fly their planes, idk what kind of flying they plan on doing if the do need rocks?:homer:

then fly over our damn heads like they do at the sand dunes. the dont need rocks to fly their planes, idk what kind of flying they plan on doing if the do need rocks?:homer:

Th

Lt. Col. James McArthur said in an interview in late 2008 that Marine officials had determined that the Johnson Valley is best for live-fire exercises and maneuvers because it provides a natural extension of training corridors on the base.

The expansion is needed, the military has said, so that Marines have enough space for three battalions to maneuver simultaneously using live ammunition accompanied by air support. Each battalion would have about 1,000 Marines aided by other troops performing command and logistics duties.

Including collateral damage? There are houses very close to this proposed new border.

I found this on page 2-12 of the Draft EIS. It's one of their eight "screening criteria" that they used to come up with "reasonable, viable" alternatives they analyzed:

8. Provide for at least 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) of buffer area between live-fire areas (including SDZs and WDZs) and any proposed or existing installation boundary in accordance with the established Combat Center safety policy (Combat Center Order P3500.4H).

This is standard for all DOD training installations that no fires or the effects of fires (actual shrapnel) will impact within 1000 meters of the installation's boundaries. Everything is to stay inside the installation.

I know this is frustrating, but the one single thing that we can guarantee will lose our rights is if we quit. On the other hand, if you send a substantive letter during the comment period, there is a chance that you can have positive effect.... IMHO, that chance is worth following up on.

Randii

This is true. Write your congressman, they will have the biggest influence over the decision in the long term. Here is the update posted on the 29 Palms website:
Project Update Notice Number 8—February 25, 2011 (http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/LAS/Documents/updates/Project%20Update%20Notice%208%20DEIS%20Release%20F inal%20110222.pdf)

I personally have asked to be one of the Marines at the meetings posted in the above PDF, so I look forward to you all coming out and representing the offroad community.

After the Record Of Decision (scheduled for April 2012) is when it will go to congress for a final decision. It's important that we remain engaged with our legislators over the entire period so that they understand we do not want to give up our off-road lands in JV or anywhere for that matter.

Mike

I personally have asked to be one of the Marines at the meetings posted in the above PDF, so I look forward to you all coming out and representing the offroad community.

After the Record Of Decision (scheduled for April 2012) is when it will go to congress for a final decision. It's important that we remain engaged with our legislators over the entire period so that they understand we do not want to give up our off-road lands in JV or anywhere for that matter.

Mike



Will any top brass be at the public hearings? How can wheelers get our comments to them? I've made comments before and then buraucratic paper pushers just seem to round file them.

If you work out at the base, just tell us the truth. Do the Marines really need more land to train the brigades? Is this just another big political scam? :mad3:

Will any top brass be at the public hearings? How can wheelers get our comments to them? I've made comments before and then buraucratic paper pushers just seem to round file them.


There will be significant representation from our installation as well as from other offices in this food chain, but I couldn't begin to say who. I'm a bit lower in the chain. Again, the most significant difference would be made by submitting your letter to your representative.


If you work out at the base, just tell us the truth. Do the Marines really need more land to train the brigades? Is this just another big political scam? :mad3:

I am prohibited from sharing my opinion on that matter. The official stance is as put forth in the DEIS.

Mike

Being military myself, I think there is something else driving this. I know they are not going to use live rounds out there, too much liability. The Risk Assesment on that kind of training would be really high, and they wont take the chance of losing good men who can be fighting overseas. I was just at JRTC held in Ft Polk Louisiana(sp?) and that training is held in open National Forrest. I don't see why they need to close it, as we run around shooting with blanks, all the while BillyBob is next to you fishing for catfish. On another note I would like to thank those that fight for our lands, as you are just as important as those of us going overseas.
Robert

I am prohibited from sharing my opinion on that matter. The official stance is as put forth in the DEIS.
Mike

That SUCKS! People need to hear from Marines like you so we can figure this thing out and hear all sides. Answer me this about the 20k personnel Marine brigades that will be trained there at 29 Palms -

When was the last time the Marines sent out a "MEB"?

What are the chances they'll be sending a "MEB" out in the next, 10, 20, 30 or even 50 years?

Are the MEBs being sent out less than fully trained?

How do the Marines train the big Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs) that have 20-90k people? Damn that would be cool to watch sometimes if the Marines "train like they fight"

What are they going to do with all the desert tortoises out in Johnson Valley? When Ft. Irwin expanded and they moved tortosies, a big bunch died.

That SUCKS! People need to hear from Marines like you so we can figure this thing out and hear all sides. Answer me this about the 20k personnel Marine brigades that will be trained there at 29 Palms -

When was the last time the Marines sent out a "MEB"?.

What are the chances they'll be sending a "MEB" out in the next, 10, 20, 30 or even 50 years?


III MEB is currently participating in Tsunami relief efforts in Japan and the I MEB & II MEB have been engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.



Are the MEBs being sent out less than fully trained?

How do the Marines train the big Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs) that have 20-90k people? Damn that would be cool to watch sometimes if the Marines "train like they fight"

Currently the MEB is trained at lower level exercises with it's elements spread out over an area that is often difficult to achieve life like scenarios. They also war game the command elements on a regular basis but it is no substitute for having the boots on the ground. While not necessarily will all those boots be on the ground in the same place, the MEB is to work the air, land, and sea elements all at the same time.


What are they going to do with all the desert tortoises out in Johnson Valley? When Ft. Irwin expanded and they moved tortosies, a big bunch died.

I have not fully read the DEIS but it should be in there somewhere. Our Natural Resources and Environmental Agency (NREA) is responsible for cataloging all the endangered species and archeologically significant things aboard the installation and do a very thorough job. The air quality piece also falls under their spectrum so if you really want to know about those things they will have a few booths set up at the public meetings to help the public understand what process's they are going through to meet state and federal guidelines.
From personal experience, we have been able to train alongside the tortoise without any tortoise casualties :). (That's for the wheeled and foot mobile troops.) Several of my young Marines over the years were completely fascinated, and had never seen a tortoise before so I would allow them to look and take pictures and then we'd move on.


Mike

Mike,

Thank you for the information. Are you or someone else going to speak about this project on the March 26th BLM advisory meeting in Victorville?

Mike,

Thank you for the information. Are you or someone else going to speak about this project on the March 26th BLM advisory meeting in Victorville?

typsy,

I will not be there as far as I know. I only just recently became part of this process but I'm sure someone who has been involved for the last few years will be there.

Mike

Why can’t the Marines do something like this? Leave that whole area in the south totally for us wheelers. Just run their third (southernmost) brigade from the base through the channel just south of Emerson Lake. The one that is north of Hartwell Hills. They would all still get the required amount of training time. All 3 brigades would be able to converge together at the red dot ("MEB objective") during their two yearly training exercises. This new alternative would only require the Marines to expand into about 60000 acres of Johnson Valley. It would leave over 120,000 acres for us to continuing riding in. Was this ever considered? I made a JPG map to show what I mean but can't figure out how to attach it here. When I click on "insert image" it asks me for a URL of the image.

typsy4X4 has a solid idea... this is the sort of thing that needs proposed to the Marines with a formal comment letter, ASKING them to consider this alternative. We can't just ask why not... we've gotta ask them very specifically to make a change, or explain exactly why they cannot.

Randii

They also need to really consider more a new alternative using the wilderness areas east of the base. Isn't it true that Congress made them so Congress can take them away? Have you ever even seen anybody hiking, camping or riding their horsies in them? General Patton used that same ground for tank training back in WWII days. It was good enough for him. The Marines would still have to shut down Amboy Road for a few days, but I could live with that.

A less preferred alternative if they really have to train in Johnson Valley is to still get rid of the wilderness but then make that as open OHV area. Open 3 acres of wilderness to wheelers for every acre lost in Johnson Valley sounds good to me. Theres already way too much wilderness as it is. Hardly anyone goes in those areas since there not accessible.

Besides creating new OHV area from wilderness, the EIS also needs to show where all the other OHV areas can be expanded too. That is called "mitigation" for every acre lost to military training. Its required by law that they consider mitigation. Where does the EIS talk about expanding or creating new areas for riding?

I surfed around to research this whole "mitigation" thing after I heard the Marine Corps rep say March 26 to the BLM advisory group that:

"Legally, our requirement is to not search for alternative places to accept the displacement. And at that point that's a legal mandate for our EIS process, meaning what you are really asking is if we support getting out, finding other areas, helping someone else designate the area. That's outside the scope of this project. That would take congressional action. As BLM looked at it, they might come and say we need to de-designate an area in order to open it up more for races. I think one was proposed earlier in this very meeting. But what I am saying is part of this proposed action, we are not required legally to come up with that particular alternative."

What he said is shocking! :shocked:Did anyone else pick up on him trying to side step this whole mitigation subject by saying its outside of there legal mandate? Isn't BLM working with them on this project? Why can't BLM map out replacement OHV areas for the Eis mitigation? I think the USMC rep needs to reread his NEPA law that says mitigation includes (from the law):

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Its critical they study replacement wheeling areas because those need to be laid out in the Eis so that its complete and congress can make good decisions, unlike in 1994 when they made Sheepholy wilderness. Its also required to look for mitigation for ALL impacts, not just the significant ones.

Take a minute to read this information from the Counsel on Environmental Quality: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/11-19.HTM#19

19b. How should an EIS treat the subject of available mitigation measures that are (1) outside the jurisdiction of the lead or cooperating agencies, or (2) unlikely to be adopted or enforced by the responsible agency?

A. All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the lead agency or the cooperating agencies, and thus would not be committed as part of the RODs of these agencies. Sections 1502.16(h), 1505.2(c). This will serve to [46 FR 18032] alert agencies or officials who can implement these extra measures, and will encourage them to do so. Because the EIS is the most comprehensive environmental document, it is an ideal vehicle in which to lay out not only the full range of environmental impacts but also the full spectrum of appropriate mitigation.

However, to ensure that environmental effects of a proposed action are fairly assessed, the probability of the mitigation measures being implemented must also be discussed. Thus the EIS and the Record of Decision should indicate the likelihood that such measures will be adopted or enforced by the responsible agencies. Sections 1502.16(h), 1505.2. If there is a history of nonenforcement or opposition to such measures, the EIS and Record of Decision should acknowledge such opposition or nonenforcement. If the necessary mitigation measures will not be ready for a long period of time, this fact, of course, should also be recognized.