Chuck Bell, President

LUCERNE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (LVEDA)

Testimony

Before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

S. 2921, California Desert Protection Act of 2010

May 20, 2010

I submit this testimony on behalf of LVEDA and its members and request that these comments be placed on the record.

1.    The fate of the Johnson Valley OHV Area is our biggest concern – a significant contribution to Lucerne Valley’s economic viability – its weekend traffic absolutely critical to our town businesses. (Note: A major portion of this OHV area is within Lucerne Valley’s boundaries). The Act would congressionally designate all the existing OHV areas in the Calif. Desert - more of a "feel good" gesture to get OHV support since it is very unlikely BLM would ever retract their boundaries - but it would protect the open areas from conflicting “renewable” energy projects.  Senator Feinstein’s staff informed us: "THE MARINES (proposed 29 Palms Marine Base expansion) WILL GO WEST INTO JV" - basically a "done-deal".  For the JV OHV area - the Act would "protect and designate OHV use" only in areas not required for base expansion.  At least the other OHV areas would be "protected" – but are not sufficient in size to accommodate whatever OHV use the expansion displaces in this largest of all the open areas in the Calif. Desert. However – the bill doesn’t “protect” those “joint use” portions of the JV OHV area that the Marines – once training started on the ground – could eventually decide were necessary for full-time use – thus becoming “closed to the public”.

Lucerne Valley/Johnson Valley/Landers, etc. are the communities most affected by the chopping up of the JV OHV Area.  We strongly request that Senator Feinstein and Congressman Lewis preserve all of it or as much as possible if they want us to support the bill.

Assuming "DOD’s westward expansion is a done deal" – albeit a future congressional decision - would what the Marines consume of the JV OHV Area be DOD or BLM-managed?  We advocate that BLM maintain its jurisdiction - issuing DOD the rights of way for its use - not fully under military authority - thus giving BLM and the public some element of control.

At least the portion of the JV OHV Area that remains intact gets "enshrined".  Problem is - the expansion will force a much more concentrated ORV use to the west side (our side) - pounding the hell of what's left out there – possibly spilling over Camprock Rd. into the Ord Mt. Desert Wildlife Mgt. Area.  It looks like the Marine’s Alt. 6 map shows the portion north of Soggy Dry Lake as “restricted public access” - making matters worse – diluting the use of this major staging/riding area. As mitigation - the Act either needs to appropriate or authorize funding for extra BLM Rangers to patrol the DWMA.

2.    There is no valid reason to include the Cady Mt. region in the bill – it is currently well protected by its topography and the CDCA Plan - but at least it isn't proposed “wilderness”.  Turning non-wilderness quality ground into "wilderness" only dilutes the integrity of the 1964 Wilderness Act - and the concept of "wilderness" itself. 

3.    Allowing hunting, rockhounding, travel on open routes, etc. to remain in the "Monument" will produce more support.  Although existing mining and claims will remain - new claims/mining are not allowed – which we adamantly oppose. Locking up mineral production in the U. S. only increases our dependence on foreign sources – that aren’t produced with the environmental protections required here. 

4. '”Monuments" in the Calif. Desert under BLM jurisdiction have a habit of being converted to "Parks" - under NPS authority.  What was BLM's “best” can easily become NPS' "worst". It is absolutely critical that the bill ensures that the area remains a BLM-administered "Monument".

5.  The bill will force solar/wind projects more into the w. Mojave (where they really belong is on rooftops and parking lots) - but arguably with locations closer to the grid with more infrastructure, etc. It will likely divert more of these so-called "renewables" (consuming tremendous acreage for relatively few megawatts) onto private land - but better than on virgin public lands subsidized by the taxpayer and public land users - but nevertheless a major impact on w. Mojave Desert communities. Lucerne Valley is currently dealing with approx. 7-8 applications and proposals on public and private land – and need some institutional help in dealing with cumulative impacts – some localized “energy” planning, etc.

6.  We support the concept of a single BLM office responsible for processing applications for 'renewables' – one of the Act’s better ideas - better coordination – a single point for public contact. 

7.  The Act proposes that the host county gets 25% of all revenue that BLM receives from "renewables".  Nice gesture – but really intended as an incentive for County (and community) buy-in.  Problem: The County would receive some $ anyway from R/W’s rents – and under the current system - our PILT payments would be reduced accordingly. To be effective and a “real” incentive, said payments need to be exempted from PILT calculations and/or the PILT process revised so counties get compensation payments for their full federal acreage – not get “maxed-out” as under the current regs.

8.  Important to repeat: To be really effective, the Act "must" either appropriate or authorize increased funding for BLM rangers - dedicated to patrolling all said "Monument" and affected areas - not for ranger time tied up in seminars or working DEA cases! Otherwise - just another document on the shelf with no enforcement!  Signing alone doesn’t work.

9.  We strongly advocate that the Act should legislatively rescind the 1980 CDCA Plan's "contingent transmission corridor (S)" through Morongo – Johnson – Lucerne Valleys - to points west - a de-facto plan amendment. (The currently proposed 'Sand to Snow’ Monument in Morongo may not suffice to preclude any future applications like LADWP’s Green Path North transmission line).  To placate utility opposition - the Act could offer incentives for expansion of existing corridors over and above that allowed in the CDCA Plan. 

10. All Catellus parcels – outside monument boundaries – currently conveyed to BLM or in the future - must remain under BLM’s multiple-use authority.

Chuck Bell chuckb@sisp.net

P. O. Box 193

Lucerne Valley, CA 92356