Question about Trails versus Open land

[bretthayes]

One question.. Hasn't there been something missing about trails versus open space? i thought some of the issue was some people believe JV should have designated trails versus being Open Land.. We want it to stay Open land without trail designations.. Is this true? So we need to stress to our groups this.. Before calling or emailing CORVA Cal4Wheel etc..

Asking a question about this Gen 4x4 thread
/forum/general-4x4-discussion/688596-we-need-leaders-please-read.html

[bretthayes]

let me clarify.. At the last meeting, I got the impression from some people talking that JV would be better served setting up designated trails.. Versus keeping it open land.. I flatly disagree and hope CORVA and Cal4 don't support this.. But if this is a possibility, I hope to get the word out we need to stress also to CORVA and Cal4 not to allow this.. Just want to know if I'm off my rocker?

[shoyrtt]

Originally Posted by bretthayes

let me clarify.. At the last meeting, I got the impression from some people talking that JV would be better served setting up designated trails.. Versus keeping it open land.. I flatly disagree and hope CORVA and Cal4 don't support this.. But if this is a possibility, I hope to get the word out we need to stress also to CORVA and Cal4 not to allow this.. Just want to know if I'm off my rocker?

I believe that was discussed at the last meeting (it was tough to hear with the game going). If I remember when it was brought up, Dave stressed the open space/no trail designation.

Again going back to the not too distant past, this issue was also discussed at the Duncan Hunter meeting with the BLM California rep Mike Pool. As I understood the conversation at that meeting, there were two ways to possibly protect the land for OHV use and redesignation by the BLM. One was the trail designation used in the Rubicon. The other (without designating specific trails) was a Congressional Act such as Cow Mountain.

My impression from Pool was it would be difficult at best to go the trail designation route and that Cow Mountain should be our model. When I researched the 2006 Bill and talked to a friend in Washington, following the Cow Mountain model and getting legislation like it for JV will be difficult.

The other issue indirectly discussed by Pool was the fact that even if Marines decide not proceed to take JV, the BLM under a new administration can redesignate JV as a wilderness area without the approval or consent of Congress, unless (as mentioned above) there is a Congressional Act.

More info on the meeting is here:
/forum/land-use-issues/669005-san-diego-town-hall-meeting-congressman-duncan-hunter-calif-blm-mike-pool.html

[kf6zpl]

Cow Mountain was designated as a "national recreation area" with a stipulation that "prescribed use" would continue. Such a land classification is reserved for congressional action.

Designation of "trails" carries certain issues revolving on the definition of the word "trails". (WARNING: be careful of what you ask for, you might not like the result).

The designation of ROUTES means that a specified width of ground is all that can be used. As such, a "route designation" in Johnson Valley could be accomplished to protect the defined routes such as the Hammers and others and provide a quasi-protected status to them and retain access be vehicles greater than 50 inches in width.

Designating them as "trails" would mean that anything over 50 inches in width would be prohibited.

(NOTE: This definition involving width is more prevalent on Forest Service managed lands. HOWEVER, I would suggest caution with how the term is used.)

And, there are "roads managed as trails" to allow greater than 50 inch width. For example, the Rubicon Trail is a "road managed as a trail".

It is within purview of an agency (BLM or Forest Service) to designation areas with a "zoning" category. As such, the OHV Open Areas were defined within the land management plans.

Critical here is that an OHV area can be "open" for unrestricted cross country travel or it can be restricted (limited) where cross country travel is not allowed.

A full open area is Dumont Dunes or Imperial Sand Dunes. Most other BLM areas fall within a "limited use" category where cross country travel is limited to existing roads and trails.

There are some OHV areas where travel is allowed only on "designated routes" within the OHV areas.

An agency CANNOT designate wilderness. Designation of wilderness is reserved as a congressional action.

An agency can modify its land management plan to eliminate (or restrict) motorized access to lands. However, those decisions are conducted with public involvement under the NEPA process.

I would be happy to discuss the various definitions and pros and cons at any time; preferably in person as there are a lot of definitions that need to be examined and understood.

I will try to address questions through this tread. However, you will not get a quick answer.

[UglyJeepThing]

Originally Posted by bretthayes

let me clarify.. At the last meeting, I got the impression from some people talking that JV would be better served setting up designated trails.. Versus keeping it open land.. I flatly disagree and hope CORVA and Cal4 don't support this.. But if this is a possibility, I hope to get the word out we need to stress also to CORVA and Cal4 not to allow this.. Just want to know if I'm off my rocker?

FYI - CORVA is not involved in the Johnson Valley meetings, although we do have many members who are involved. We have a newly formed Board of Directors and we are still looking at the JV problem, trying to determine how best we can help.

CORVA encourages all OHV users to be involved with the process - local people solving local issues is going to be a very important part of dealing with all the ongoing land use problems. We're going to try hard to empower and educate as many OHV users as we can about land use issues.

Ed Waldheim is involved in the JV meetings, but he is no longer President of CORVA, and does not represent CORVA.

Jim Woods is our current CORVA President, and Bruce Whitcher is the VP of Land Use. Both are experienced with land use issues, and good guys to work with as well!

Anyone have any questions, just send me an email!

Thanks,

Amy

[kf6zpl]

Amy said "local people solving local issues".....

Absolutely!!!!!!!

Be involved and become part of the solution. It is YOUR recreation opportunity. It is in your best interests to be a part of solutions affecting your opportunities.