|
Print Page | ||
| Hollister Field Office | |||
Clear Creek Management Area - Temporary Closure Frequently Asked Questions Why is this action necessary? BLM feels the immediate temporary closure is necessary for public/employee health and safety reasons based on the findings in the EPA report. The long-term management of CCMA will be addressed through the RMP being developed. How does BLM plan to enforce the closure? BLM will sign, post, and have its law enforcement personnel enforce the closure to the greatest extent possible. However, public cooperation and compliance will be critical to achieving the public safety objectives of the temporary closure. Under what authority is BLM closing the area? The closure is authorized under 43 CFR 8364.1 which states: “To protect persons, property, and public lands and resources, the authorized officer may issue an order to close or restrict use or designated public lands.” Under the rules, BLM must publish a Federal Register Notice, post the closure notice near area affected, specify persons who are exempt, and cites standard public land order violation penalties that can be imposed by a Federal Magistrate (fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months.) How long has there been OHV use at CCMA? CCMA has been an important weekend recreational destination for central California residents for the past 35 years. Clear Creek is among the top five most popular areas cited by California OHV users in a 1990 study conducted by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Other common activities include hobby gem/mineral collecting, hunting, hiking/backpacking, and vehicle touring/sightseeing. Visitor use is most prevalent during the winter months (November – April), because winter rainfall keeps the dust levels lower and cooler temperatures. The number of OHV visitors is approximately 35,000 per year. Over the last three years there has been an average decrease in the number of visitors per year due to implementation of dry season use restrictions and recreation user fees. When did BLM institute the previous dry season closure? Why? Sampling conducted by EPA in September and November of 2004 found elevated levels of airborne asbestos fibers present during various recreation activities. The soil is driest from June through October, so there is the greatest potential to generate dust and airborne asbestos. Therefore, BLM has been restricting public access during the “dry season” (June 1 – October 15) within the CCMA since 2005. The Salinas Ramblers Motorcycle Club, American Motorcyclist Association District 36, CAL4WD, CORVA, Off-Road Business Association, and the Blue Ribbon Coalition appealed the decision to implement 2005 dry season use restrictions to the Interior Board of Lands Appeals (IBLA) on May 25, 2005. In an opinion dated July 10, 2007, the IBLA affirmed the decision by BLM to implement the dry season use restrictions. The dry season use restrictions were formally approved in the Record of Decision for CCMA Route Designation Plan. In the 2006 ROD, BLM and EPA also agreed that further use restrictions in CCMA may be needed to reduce risk to the public from asbestos exposure if additional information indicates the human health risk is significantly higher than previous studies have shown. How long has BLM been working with EPA and other agencies on health risk issues? Previous studies to determine the ambient levels of asbestos fibers in CCMA were conducted in 1979 (UC Berkeley), 1985 (CA Department of Forestry/Fire Protection), and 1992 (BLM, PTI). All these studies indicated that there was a significant risk to public safety and human health from exposure to naturally occurring asbestos in CCMA. On September 2004, the U.S. EPA conducted the first of four sampling events in the CCMA. Similar "activity-based" sampling events were conducted in November 2004, February 2005 and September 2005. Is there a high level of public controversy? Yes. The BLM received hundreds of letters, comment forms and e-mail messages during the land use planning process for the CCMA RMP Amendment and Route Designation (2006). Most of the comments were related to off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities and the need for protection of unique natural, cultural, and historic resources in CCMA. In addition to conflicts between motorized recreation and listed species protection, the results of the EPA asbestos exposure evaluation study are likely to generate significant controversy. Will CCMA users who purchased permits receive a refund? Users who purchased a weekly permit will not receive a refund. Users who purchased the annual permit will receive a pro-rated dollar amount for that part of the season that will be closed to use. Will BLM refund green sticker money to the state? BLM will consult with the California’s State Park OHV Division to determine the final disposition of grant funding assigned to the Clear Creek Management Area. Are recreation and environmental interest groups participating in the planning process? The Monterey County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, an environmental interest group, has been participating in the planning process to emphasize the importance of special status species protection in CCMA. There will also be substantial participation from recreation interests, primarily from OHV enthusiasts, which have also traditionally participated in the land use planning process for CCMA to advocate their use of BLM public lands. BLM continues to keep major environmental groups, like the California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, and Sierra Club informed about the planning process. What are the key planning elements? Current management direction for Clear Creek Management Area is contained in the 1984 Hollister Resource Management Plan and subsequent amendments. This plan and its amendments, while providing a broad overview of goals, objectives, and needs associated with public lands, lack detailed direction and are generally outdated. Social, political, and environmental changes, coupled with significant population growth not anticipated in the plan and amendments, have presented some complex management issues, which will benefit from an updated “stand alone” RMP for CCMA. The current CCMA plan amendments do not address present program guidance, laws, regulations and policies developed since their conception. Development of a new CCMA RMP would enhance management by addressing planning needs discussed in the Hollister Field Office Land Use Plan Evaluation (2002) as well as concerns about the health risk from exposure to naturally occurring asbestos as agreed upon by BLM and the EPA. A new stand alone RMP for CCMA will also provide the opportunity for public involvement in a new era of land use planning to address these complex and controversial issues. This planning effort will be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. This effort will also identify the BLM’s mission, long-term management goals and objectives, and land use allocations for the CCMA.
Bureau of Land Management
|
|||
>