Race Talk @ racemrann.com

[Josh Wilson]

The Winnemucca BLM office is currently updating their resource management plan and this will have direct impacts on what we all love to do. I like racing, but I love exploring and this will eliminate that completely. The document came out in late May and there is 90 day comment period so time is getting short. Public meetings will also be scheduled in Reno, Winnemucca, Lovelock and Gerlach.

In my opinion, alternative A is the best as it’s the (No Action Alternative).

Alternative B changes the amount of open designation (cross country travel with motorized vehicles) from the current level of 93% to 21%, while alternative C would completely eliminate the open designation and alternative D (the BLM preferred alternative) will reduce it to 4% of BLM-administered land. Yes that’s correct, 4%. My concern with this proposal is the lack of a comprehensive trail inventory in this area. Under this Alt. D, 95% of motorized travel will be limited to “designated routes (limited designation)”.

Alternative B would also designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA’s) --- The Nightingale SRMA (925,593 acres), the Winnemucca SRMA (151,824 acres) and the Granite Range SRMA (95,972 acres). Alternative C designates two new SRMA’s the Winnemucca and Granite, so if my assumptions are correct, no more racing in Nightengale, Purgatory, etc. Alternative C even goes as far as to prohibit grazing. This option is very scary. Alternative D would designate the same SRMA’s as Alt. B above.

Comments can be sent to wdrmp@blm.gov and can also be mailed to:
BLM Winnemucca District
Attn. RMP Team
5100 East Winnemucca Blvd.
Winnemucca, NV 89445

The document states: “comments on the content of this document are critical to the success of this planning effort” it also goes on to say “comments that are only opinions will not receive formal response from the BLM.” They want specific suggested changes and/or specific sections or page numbers. If this turns out like most things I’ve been involved with relating to BLM land use issues, I’m betting that Alternative D will ultimately be implemented, but I don’t think it’s an unworthy cause to support Alternative A with some specific language outlining why “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” I haven’t got that far yet, the clock is ticking, we can all use each others help in this if you agree. Offer any responses you may have.......this is huge!

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[Thomas]

Here is the link. Like Josh said, this is scary and we need to take action.
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blm_information/rmp.html

[Josh Wilson]

Here's a quick update on what I've read tonight:

Only 1 of the 3 proposed Special Recreation Management Areas would allow for competetive events, of course that's the Nightengale SRMA which is not included in Alternative C, but it is at least part of the the BLM supported Alternative D. I've been reading and haven't had the time to review the maps yet, but the Nightengale map is Figure 2-52 of Appendix A, the Winnemucca Map is Figure 2-54 of Appendix A, and the Pine Forrest map is Figure 2-57 of Appendix A. The proposed areas to be limited or closed to OHV use can be seen in Figure 2-62 of Appendix A.

Regarding Special Recreation Permits, the following is recommended by the BLM.

Objective D-R 9. Provide for commercial activities, competitive events and organized groups while minimizing adverse environmental impacts.

Action D-R 9.1. Authorization of SRPs would continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis on receipt of application and implementation of all the following criteria.

Action D-R 9.1.2. Protect natural and cultural resources by limiting large group SRPs to no more than 1000 participants.

Action D-R 9.1.2.1. Issue large group SRPs in designated areas of the Blue Wing and Adobe Flats playas.

Action D-R 9.1.2.2. Limit the large group SRPs to no more than three per year.

Action D-R 9.1.3. Protect natural and cultural resources by limiting the number of competitive off-road events allowed in a fiscal year

Action D-R 9.1.3.1. Limit authorization of competitive motorcycle SRPs to no more than five per fiscal year.

Action D-R 9.1.3.1.1. Limit authorization of competitive off-road SRPs involving all other types of off-road vehicles, such as buggies, trucks, quads, and rock crawlers, to no more than three per fiscal year.

Action D-R 9.1.3.1.2. Review the limits set in Action D – R 9.1.3.1 and R 9.1.3.1.1 every five years.

[ktm angel]

There will be an open house for the public to review and comment on the Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan on:

Thursday, July 29, 2010 from 5 to 7 pm
Hyatt Place Hotel, Reno
1790 East Plumb Lane
Reno, Nevada

Please plan to attend and comment on the plan!!!

Thanks, Beth

[ktm450dezracer]

i will try to attend aswell hope you can make it josh and thomas. this is verey bad news for us in the winnumucca dist....
_________________
Mcadam 609T
TANKSLAPPERS MC
2009 MRANN SLAKKER Show Off (ha ha cliff told ya id beat you)
CMS -n- RMS
MCDIESEL
HAKUNA MATATA

[Baja Joe]

[quote="ktm450dezracer"]i will try to attend aswell hope you can make it josh and thomas. this is verey bad news for us in the winnumucca dist....



Do not let them get away with this by them stating;

We ran out of time to log all the trials so this is the best we would do...

We ran out of money so we did not log all the trails so this is the best we can do...

They swore on a stack of bibles (an oath) to do their job. And logging all the trails that show use is mandatory. Or have them explain why they can only log this trail and not that one. They cant make these decisions so dont believe anything they say. They have to log all trails without bias.

If they did not have the time then demand they extend any and all review periods until every single trail has been logged. They waited this long to do these types of changes so another few years will not matter.

Remember that once an area is closed or a rule is in place you will never get them to relax any of it.

Keep in mind they will close somethings. And they will impose some new rules. But the game here is to limit what they actually pass, slow it down a bit, and hope your grandkids can actually put a tire in the dirt 20 yrs from now.

Regarding the number of events. Demand to see the full length study (3rd party unbiased) to show why these numbers are science and not just out of their you know whats. Typically no one challenges the data behind these rules. DEMAND IT or tell them to remove the event restrictions or you will sue. The data should make perfect sense to YOU THE TAX PAYER and not just some Bio Nut who hates OHV use.

Peace,

Baja Joe
_________________
MRANN Am Over 30
Cheaters MC
5th Gear WFO, You can't go wrong!!
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."holy crap...what a ride!"

[Josh Wilson]

Thanks for posting the meeting date.......everyone in MRANN, including your kids, should show up for this to let them hear your input. After looking at the maps, the Trailblazers pit area, and most others are not in the Nightengale SRMA as none of the checkerboard land is included. I'm not sure what that means for the future of our race......but our permit will be filed in the next couple of weeks and I guess we'll see what happens.

I can only take this stuff in small pieces and here's what I read tonight that's not good news for us, and it's their "Proposed Wilderness Characteristics Areas" which includes areas from the Trailblazers, Tankslappers, and Cheaters courses. These proposed wilderness areas were shot down by local county officials a few years back when the feds tried to force a "Pershing County Lands Bill" and they've now shown up as part of this RMP which doesn't require local approval. For OHV's, let alone racing, wilderness = land closures! Here's some specific language from the plan:

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS AND LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS Goal: Manage wilderness study areas (WSAs) as required by the wilderness Interim Management Policy for preservation of natural conditions and processes and to provide opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation.

Action D-WSA 2.1. Protect key resource values through other resources/resource uses’ designations (e.g., ACECs, avoidance area designations, VRM), identifications, allowable uses, and management actions in the following areas with wilderness characteristics (Figure 2-80, Appendix A): Bluewing Mountains (25,651 acres); North Shawave Mountains (45,686 acres);

[JENNINGS46x]

The following is the timetable and breif explaination of the RMP


Public Scoping
Public scoping is the process of determining the scope of public concerns, desires, or issues by gathering initial input from a wide variety of sources. This process helps the BLM to better understand the nature and extent of issues and impacts to be addressed in the RMP and the methods by which they will be examined. The official start of the scoping period began with the publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Resource Management Plan on March 25, 2005. The comment period ended on May 24, 2005. During those 60 days, open houses were held on May 2, 2005 (Winnemucca, NV); May 3, 2005 (Lovelock, NV); May 4, 2005 (Gerlach, NV); and on May 5, 2005 (Reno, NV). For more information please refer to the Scoping Summary Report .

The public will be invited to comment on the Draft RMP/EIS during the public review period described below.




Development of Planning Issues and Criteria
During May and June of 2005 BLM resource specialists, along with Tetra Tech, Inc., considered comments received during the scoping period and developed a list of planning issues and criteria.




Data Collection and Analysis
From March 2005 to September 2006 baseline studies were conducted to gather information on the current condition of resources and management of those resources.




Formation of Alternatives
From June 2005 through December 2009 the Winnemucca District and Tetra Tech resource specialists, along with the assistance of cooperating agencies and the Resource Advisory Council Subgroup, developed a set of alternatives that could address the resource management issues and criteria raised during the public scoping period. One of the alternatives was to continue with the current management as delineated in the Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio MFPs.

The range of alternatives was included in the Draft RMP and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). After thorough analysis and much deliberation, the Winnemucca District Manager selected a preferred alternative. The Draft RMP/EIS, including the preferred alternative, was reviewed at all levels of the BLM: the District Office, Nevada State Office, Washington Office and the Solicitor's Office.




Public Review of Draft RMP/EIS
The BLM released the Draft RMP/EIS to the public for a 90 day review period on June 25, 2010.
During this period, public comments will be received through a variety of avenues. Open house meetings will be held on Monday, July 26, in Winnemucca; Tuesday, July 27, in Lovelock; Wednesday, July 28, in Gerlach; and Thursday, July 29, in Reno. Please refer to the " Getting Involved " page for more information, to submit an electronic comment or to download a PDF fillable comment form.

After the public commenting period, comments will be gathered and analyzed. Appropriate revisions to the Draft RMP/EIS will be made and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS will be prepared.




Development of Proposed RMP/Final EIS
Like the draft version, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS will undergo extensive review at the District, State and Washington office levels. Following this, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is scheduled for a 30 day public protest period and a 60 day Governor's Consistency Review starting in August of 2011. A protest resolution period will follow.




Release of Record of Decision (ROD)
Once any issues raised during the protest period or Governor's consistency review period have been resolved, a ROD will be signed making the final determination of the RMP's fate. The estimated date for the release of the ROD is in March of 2012.
_________________
Cory Jennings
46x

[Baja Joe]

Josh,

The use of the term wilderness is misued all the time by eco freaks to justirfy closing areas that have for generations been the use of recreationist. Please fight hard to not let this word be used;

By Definition;

An area can ONLY be considered a proposed wilderness area if and only if the public has put little to zero impact to the area. If there are exisitng roads, trails, etc. in the area then it CANNOT, by definition be considered for a wilderness area. Has ther been mining in the area? Then demand they explain this area can be considered for wilderness status...??

This same logic applies to roadless areas.

They will use this "we must provide wilderness area for future generations" to shame all parties involved to close this area for good.

Once again, none of this can happen to an area that has historically and continuosly been used for recreation and access. This tactic is used and must be forcefully addressed right from the start. If it runs too long without a check then niave public will start to drink the cool aid and believe there is some validity to the eco freaks claims.

Good Luck
_________________
MRANN Am Over 30
Cheaters MC
5th Gear WFO, You can't go wrong!!
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."holy crap...what a ride!"

[Baja Joe]

Development of Proposed RMP/Final EIS
Like the draft version, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS will undergo extensive review at the District, State and Washington office levels. Following this, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is scheduled for a 30 day public protest period and a 60 day Governor's Consistency Review starting in August of 2011. A protest resolution period will follow.

Challenge the alloted time to review. In the Gov Experts took how many years to put the docs together?? How much time should a reasonable educated person take to review his/her public lands? A typical number should be 20 pages per hour. I would argue for 15 since every and all refences and data reports will need to be reivewed and verified.

You have the right to ask for an increase to review. Ask for 6 months and maybe settle for ??

Also, remember how this game is played. And posting this here on the open net is notihing new;

Your only hope is to CHANGE THE TEXT in the EIS. The TEXT in the EIS is the ONLY INFORMATION the Decisions Maker can use to choose what is best. Either make darn sure you have eco freak biased text REMOVED and make darn sure your OHV biased text is included.

Telling them you like to ride you r bike is a "No Action" comment. And is totally worthless. Talkng with them at the meetings and explaining how important the area is is pointless. Any comments you make to them in a public meeting do not have to written down, followed up, or acted upon. It is almost a complete waste of time to go to these meetings IMO. Spend this time reading the EIS and finding the BS that the eco freak Biologist have put in to try and justify the closures.

Find their personal inputs and opinions and demand that this is removed from the EIS.

Telling them that since no ADA impact or Senior Impact has been taken into account that a 5 year study of the area needs to be done beofre closing any access. Failure to address the impact to the disabled and retired american and vets is a huge failure that could warrent a lawsuit.

Change the text in the EIS. Period. Good Luck
_________________
MRANN Am Over 30
Cheaters MC
5th Gear WFO, You can't go wrong!!
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."holy crap...what a ride!"

[DIRK DELANEY]

la la la la la connect the dots, la la la la la connect the dots.........

Last year we have confirmation that a scouting party from the CBD shows up at the Winnemucca BLM field office specifically asking questions about MRANN, our courses and starting areas, and OHV use on the district in general. These Nazi's know that the BLM will be doing RMP route planning soon, so I guarantee that there was a conversation that "never happened" that went something like: " If you do a good job at closing things, we won't slap you with lawsuits" This coupled with the underfunding of the BLM, the time frames they must meet, and their general laziness equals a bad situation of those of us who actually get out and enjoy our great desert.
The Winemucca field office has been considered OHV friendly. I seriously believe that has made them a target inside the governmental structure and from outside criminal entities like the CBD. Do you think its a coincidence that now they seem to be very restrictive? -no
We gotta make them accountable to stick to their own policies as Baja has stated, its the only way to make any ground. (or keep any ground I guess)
Its time to bring in a specialist for our side. We need to use our land use funds and get somebody on payroll to deal with this now. I have a guy that I have already mentioned this too, he maybe the best in the country, he is willing to help.
Thanks to those who are working hard, but I know how time consuming and difficult it is. We all work here, so we need somebody dedicated to this now.
_________________
What will you do today to protect your rights?

[Baja Joe]

The eco freaks threaten lawsuits and win.

... it’s time for the OHV users to sue as well also. It’s not that we are stooping to there level. This is just par for the course in land battles these days. Wake up and smell the race gas kiddos and get the lawyers ready. And we have been sitting by the side lines for too long IMO.

We can do two things or others;

Try and think we are smart and do this ourselves and maybe hire a legal expert to make those "critical" comments to change the text and threaten to sue ourselves if the comments are not acted upon. $$$$$ and a lot of time on individuals parts.

Or

Team up with one of the already existing land use advocacy groups and let their already in place legal team fight this fight.

I have done it both ways and there are pros and cons. The local groups and one expert can make a diff but not put the big pressure on the feds back east. The big OHV guys want to get involved mostly if there is a big news story to promote their way of life.

IMHO MRANN is not a land use advocacy organization. MRANN promotes responsible off highway races. This legal fight needs expertise and knowledge of the rules to be really effective. The game has rules and forcing the BLM to play by there own rules means.... You have to know the rules to fight this fight. And this takes time to learn.

Peace, Out,

Baja Joe
_________________
MRANN Am Over 30
Cheaters MC
5th Gear WFO, You can't go wrong!!
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting..."holy crap...what a ride!"

[ktm450dezracer]

well it actually isnt as bad as we all thought right off the bat. we just cannot cannot let choice "C" pass. and when the final documents are to be drawn up that is when we really really need to step up and make sure all of us voice our opinions. it was a good meeting and met some people that i needed to know from blm. thanks josh and his family for attending and for thomas atttending aswell. asta la pasta for now
_________________
Mcadam 609T
TANKSLAPPERS MC
2009 MRANN SLAKKER Show Off (ha ha cliff told ya id beat you)
CMS -n- RMS
MCDIESEL
HAKUNA MATATA

[DIRK DELANEY]

And people think that my conspiracy theory is crazy.........

ARRA Obtains Remainder of Leaked DOI Document Detailing BLM Agenda that Leaves Little Room for Motorized Recreation

ARRA alerted you to a leaked Department of Interior memo earlier this year that outlined that the Administration is considering restricting access to public lands by declaring as many as 17 areas in 11 western states as National Monuments. The leaked pages were part of a bigger “Treasured Landscapes” document. Since the leak, the House Natural Resources Committee passed a Resolution of Inquiry (H.Res. 1406) directing DOI to turn over the full document. The full House has yet to act on the inquiry; however, ARRA has obtained a copy of the full document, which can be found here.

In addition to the pages we knew about addressing National Monuments there is an attachment that highlights wilderness bills that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) believes “may be appropriate for Wilderness or National Conservation Area designation,” including potential designations in NM, NV, OR, CO, CA and UT. Particularly troubling is the inclusion of the Hidden Gems proposal in CO, which has yet to be formally introduced and has faced significant opposition from motorized and other organizations in Colorado.

The document also lays out BLM’s intention to “…transition from the current land management system, which is based on jurisdictional boundaries, to a modern landscape-level management system…” Part of this transition includes supporting Congressional efforts to designate Wilderness, National Conservation areas and other special designations, and the designation of new National Monuments, which are outlined in the attachments. The document also makes it clear that BLM intends to use its own “land-use planning process to manage for conservation values” in areas where legislative or Monument protection is unlikely.

All of this is likely to have a negative impact on motorized recreation on BLM lands. All OHV use is forever banned in wilderness areas, and will almost certainly be banned in areas that receive other special designations. Further, the document lays out a clear desire to elevate managing for conservation over BLM’s mandate to manage for multiple uses. While conservation is certainly important, there is no reason that lands managed for all forms of recreation, including motorized, cannot be conserved.

ARRA has also alerted you about the Administration’s “America’s Great Outdoors Initiative (AGO),” and has notified many of you about AGO listening sessions in your area. DOI Secretary Ken Salazar has made it clear that he envisions implementing the Treasured Landscapes agenda laid out in the leaked documents as part of the AGO recommendations.

This makes it especially important for all OHV users to get involved and participate in any local AGO listening sessions and/or submit comments on the America’s Great Outdoors website here: http://ideas.usda.gov/ago/ideas.nsf/
_________________
What will you do today to protect your rights?