Public Land Closure Effective TODAY

[IMAUDIGGER]

Forest Regional Order 20-10 (No Trespassing on California Public Lands managed by USDA Forest Service)


Regional Order No. 20-10 USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Emergency Closure Order
Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 551 and 36 C.F.R. 261.50(a) and (b), and to provide for public safety and protect natural resources, the following acts are prohibited on National Forest System lands within the Pacific Southwest Region. This Order is effective from September 9, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, through September 14, 2020.
1. Going into or being upon National Forest System lands within the National Forests listed below.
a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.
36 C.F.R.
2. Being on
a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.
Eldorado National Forest
Tahoe National Forest
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Plumas National Forest
Lassen National Forest
Mendocino National Forest
Klamath National Forest
Six Rivers National Forest Shasta-Trinity National Forest Modoc National Forest
261.52(e).
a National Forest System road within the National Forests listed below.
Eldorado National Forest
Tahoe National Forest
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Plumas National Forest
Lassen National Forest
Mendocino National Forest
Klamath National Forest
Six Rivers National Forest Shasta-Trinity National Forest
j.
36 C.F.R. 261.54(e).
3. Being on
a. b. c. d. e.
a National Forest System trail within the National Forests listed below.
Eldorado National Forest
Tahoe National Forest
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Plumas National Forest
Lassen National Forest
Modoc National Forest

f. Mendocino National Forest
g. Klamath National Forest
h. Six Rivers National Forest
i. Shasta-Trinity National Forest
j. Modoc National Forest
36 C.F.R. 261.55(a).
Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 261.50(e), the following persons are exempt from this Order:
1. Persons with Forest Service Permit No. FS-7700-48 (Permit for Use of Roads, Trails, or Areas Restricted by Regulation or Order), specifically exempting them from this Order
2. Any Federal, State, or local officer, or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force in the performance of an official duty.
3. Persons with a Forest Service non-special-use written authorization to conduct non-recreational activities, such as harvesting timber or forest products, or grazing livestock.
4. Owners or lessees of land, to the extent necessary to access their land.
5. Residents, to the extent necessary to access their residences.
6. Persons engaged in a business, trade, or occupation are not exempt from the prohibitions listed above, but may use National Forest System roads to the extent necessary to carry out their business, trade, or occupation.
These prohibitions are in addition to the general prohibitions contained in 36 C.F.R. Part 261, Subpart A.
A violation of these prohibitions is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. 16 U.S.C. 551 and 18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571, and 3581.
Done at Vallejo, California, this 9th day of September 2020.
RANDY MOORE
Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region
X
Signed by: RANDY MOORE
This Order supersedes Regional Order No. 20-09, signed on September 7, 2020.
==================
How does this affect prospecting and mining on federal mining claims?
Personally I think this is a HUGE leap that will likely lead to down the slippery slope if not nipped in the butt quickly. No trespassing on 33 million acres of public land with the swipe of a pen by a non elected federal employee?

Most trails (and many roads) around here existed prior to the USFS and enjoy congressionally granted right of ways. Don’t see how the USFS can suspend those senior rights.

I get the thought behind the closure...too many idiots starting too many fires...but where does it end?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[IMAUDIGGER]

Here is there rational.


Regional Order No. 20-10 to prohibit going into or being upon National Forest System lands in the following National Forests: Eldorado NF, Tahoe NF, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Plumas NF, Lassen NF, Mendocino NF, Klamath NF, Six Rivers NF, Shasta-Trinity NF, and Modoc NF. This order will be in effect from September 9, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, through September 14, 2020. This Regional Order will protect natural resources and provide for the safety of forest visitors by preventing them from getting trapped on National Forest System lands during emergency circumstances.

California is experiencing an unprecedented and dire fire season. There are 18 National Forests in California, totaling approximately 20 million acres. Currently, 13 of 18 National Forests in the Pacific Southwest Region in California have large fires. Nearly all fires are now large, "complex" fires (a series of fires in close proximity to one another that have burned into a single large unit). In a typical fire season, California will see some 300,000 acres burn. This year, more than 1.8 million acres have already burned statewide.

Extreme weather conditions have made this situation significantly worse this year. Record high temperatures, unprecedented dry lightning events, and multiple heatwaves across the state have made conditions extremely dry and susceptible to fire ignition. Temperatures have reached over 100 degrees for most of the state several weeks running, even in areas along the coast that are typically cooler. In addition to the heat and high temperatures, significant wind events have occurred fueling blazes out of control. This week we have already seen major wind events and they are expected to continue in both northern and southern California. In northern California, we are in the midst of a 99-year historic wind event that began Monday evening. In southern California, strong Santa Ana winds have arrived 3 weeks earlier than in a typical weather year. The combination of record heat and wind are a recipe for significant fire danger and potential disaster.

Nationally, and within California, firefighting resources are operating at maximum capacity and there are significant shortages of resources. Our firefighting organization has been in Preparedness Level 5 (PL5), the highest level of fire response preparedness, for several weeks. Nationally there are no Type 1 Incident Management Teams available and only two Type 2 teams available. All fire engines and major firefighting equipment are already assigned to existing fires or positioned to prevent new fire starts from File 2

escaping initial attack. This scarcity of resources has caused the agency to seek assistance from the U.S. Army as well as other countries including Canada, Mexico, and Australia. This situation means that should additional fires break, the agency may not be able to respond in a timely manner, further risking life and property.

National Forests in California have seen record numbers of visitors this summer. Reports indicate that use levels normally associated with peak holidays such as Memorial Day and the 4th of July are being seen every day throughout the summer. This has held true this past Labor Day weekend as well. Campgrounds and dispersed use areas are reported as full to capacity and overflowing. Parking lots spill over into roadways. Conflicts between use groups are up, including criminal activity. And trash and human waste are collecting faster than staffs are able to clear and clean facilities. These visitor use levels and related management issues further exacerbate a challenging fire situation creating a heightened level of risk.

In northern California, a significant wind event occurred last evening fanning existing fires that grew exponentially overnight. Dry conditions in the north along with rugged terrain and high winds have made conditions extremely dangerous. When we consider this in relation to the high levels of public use and recreation that occurs on national forests in northern California, there is a recipe for potential disaster. For instance, earlier this week the Creek Fire on the Sierra National Forest grew exponentially one afternoon due to high winds encircling a popular boat launch and lake area. As a result, 150 people were entrapped and had to be evacuated by helicopters from the Army National Guard.

This Regional Order includes an exemption for persons with a Forest Permit for Use of Roads, Trails, or Areas Restricted by Regulation or Order (Form FS-7700-48). Authorization under this exemption will only be provided if I or my delegate determine that the risk to personal health and safety is reasonable considering the circumstances of the request. We may also require appropriate personal protective equipment and other necessary safety measures. I hereby delegate the authority to sign Form FS-7700-48, granting an exemption to this Regional Order, to the Forest Supervisors on the Eldorado NF, Tahoe NF, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Plumas NF, Lassen NF, Mendocino NF, Klamath NF, Six Rivers NF, Shasta-Trinity NF, and Modoc NF.

I have concluded that this decision may be categorically excluded from documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act. This action falls within the category identified in 36 CFR 220.6(d)

(1) – prohibitions to provide short-term resource protection or to protect public health and safety – and does not require documentation in a decision memo, decision notice, or record of decision. File 3

I have determined that there are no extraordinary circumstances associated with this temporary closure. Implementation of the decision may begin immediately after I issue this Order.

RANDY MOORE Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region XSigned by: RANDY MOORE

Enclosure –

Related Information

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Any opinions on this...16 USC Section 551 seems to be the law they are relying upon as authorization for the hard forest closure.



16 USC 478 appears to protect ingress and egress of “settlers” and prospectors.
It specifically states that ingress and egress along roadsides and trails is protected.
Prospecting, developing, mining is specifically protected...with the caveat that you follow the rules and regulations of the forest. To me that means any rules and regulations that are not in violation of this specific code section...in other words they can’t create a rule or regulation prohibiting ingress and egress for the purposes of mining (which would be specifically in conflict with this code section).



Further...16 UCS 480 protects our rights enjoyed in our state.



Seems really clear cut that they can’t keep you from mining or accessing your home.
Additionally it ensures ingress and egress for all “proper and lawful purposes”

 

[Tpmetal]

man California is falling apart and my state of ny is right behind it...... sad times

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Additionally the protections specifically recognized in the organic act were recognized in an altered way (deleting reference to mining activities) in the transportation management plan....even it says SHALL PERMIT..not may permit.



It seems they are falling back to the conditional provisions “subjects to rules and regulations” meaning they can do whatever they see fit to protect the Forest. However even the layperson could understand that any rules or regulations prohibiting ingress and egress for lawful proper purposes (including mining) is outside the intent of the authority to manage (16 CFR 551).

 

[Johnnybravo300]

I'm surprised anyone still lives there. Seems most are leaving while they have any money left.

 

[DizzyDigger]

IMA, considering the short term of the closure and the very present
fire danger, it's really not out of the question to try and minimize access
to lands susceptible to fires.

I also see your point about this possibly only being a test-run for
closing access for longer periods.

With the current conditions down there, and knowing just
how fast those fires can spread, I certainly wouldn't want to be
caught somewhere in the wild with no escape route.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

IMA, considering the short term of the closure and the very present
fire danger, it's really not out of the question to try and minimize access
to lands susceptible to fires.

I also see your point about this possibly only being a test-run for
closing access for longer periods.

With the current conditions down there, and knowing just
how fast those fires can spread, I certainly wouldn't want to be
caught somewhere in the wild with no escape route.

The problem is:
1.) Regardless of good intentions, they have to follow the law governing the authority granted to them. Repeal 16 USC 478 if it is not applicable to how they regulate the forest.

2.) EVERY summer in California it is fire season. Red flag days, high winds, low humidity....enormous fires. It’s a way of life for us given the climate and destructive forest management practices that are being employed. Will the closure be a week long this year, and 4 weeks next summer? Will they extend the thought process of protecting the environment via. state wide closures for reasons other than fires?

3.) They are partially using increased forest use and lack of manpower as justification for the closure. Too much trash....group conflicts....illegal activities....Where will that lead?..

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

I grew up in the mountains in Julian,Ca and yes I can understand the knee jerk reaction of we have to close it all down.But it is a slippery slope to let this go by without some kind of resistance.If the Governing bodies that are doing this don't have any feedback against this closure they will just use this as a reason to close anything any time without cause.We all know the problem lies with the Sierra club and other organizations tying the hands with a no touch, no harvest, no graze approach and the forest service for suppressing all fires,what I mean by the forest service suppressing fires is some fires are needed in the forest to keep it clean enough that these type of fires don't happen.Fire is natural to a forest but when man steps in and suppresses any from burning, the fuel load just keeps building to a point that the fire doesn't burn itself out anymore and the longer burn times with these new fires sterilize the soil, so it takes longer for any regrowth to occur.A lot of people don't know that for a Sequoia tree seed to germinate requires fire.So if you suppress the fire that would burn through that area, the last Sequoia trees on this earth will be the ones that are standing now.People need an education on the forests before they start voting on what needs done in the forest.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

I grew up in the mountains in Julian,Ca and yes I can understand the knee jerk reaction of we have to close it all down.But it is a slippery slope to let this go by without some kind of resistance.If the Governing bodies that are doing this don't have any feedback against this closure they will just use this as a reason to close anything any time without cause.We all know the problem lies with the Sierra club and other organizations tying the hands with a no touch, no harvest, no graze approach and the forest service for suppressing all fires,what I mean by the forest service suppressing fires is some fires are needed in the forest to keep it clean enough that these type of fires don't happen.Fire is natural to a forest but when man steps in and suppresses any from burning, the fuel load just keeps building to a point that the fire doesn't burn itself out anymore and the longer burn times with these new fires sterilize the soil, so it takes longer for any regrowth to occur.A lot of people don't know that for a Sequoia tree seed to germinate requires fire.So if you suppress the fire that would burn through that area, the last Sequoia trees on this earth will be the ones that are standing now.People need an education on the forests before they start voting on what needs done in the forest.

Sounds like you have a good handle on the issue we are facing.
However, when is the last time you voted on a specific Issue having to do with forest management?

The closest you will come is the presidential election. It's an appointed position assigning primary decision making responsibility to an unelected employee.

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

Yeah I see your point.I don't think I have seen anything on a ballot in ages concerning our forests.I believe people started believing it was a lost cause because it would be tied up in the courts with law suits,Maybe these fires will open peoples eyes to how badly these management practices really are,we can only hope.Not to trivialize the losses people are enduring but this will open ground up to erosion giving up some gold to find, but it also creates so many issues for the wildlife in the rivers being choked up.We will probably see a major fish die off in these areas and that will be another reason to blame and close off rivers to our access.Even though it all leads back to poor management on the Governments side whether Federal or local Government.

 

[ArfieBoy]

man California is falling apart and my state of ny is right behind it...... sad times

Yes, California has been falling apart ever since I left in 1947 at one year of age!!

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Let’s not forget this is a Federal Government issue.

 

[mikep691]

White I understand the law for ingress/egress, and support our right to it, There will always be those times that the public safety is more important than the law. Three years ago some idiot started 11 fires in the Plumas National Forest. My partner and I were mining our claim when the smoke rolled in. We made the trip into town to get internet access to find out what was happening. Then we drove to the top of the ridge where we could see the fires burning. The following day a FSLEO found us in camp loading up. He advised us that we were the last in the forest and it was being closed for public safety. The fire combined into one and was less than a mile from our claim. It was a month before we could return to mining.

Now, the North complex fires has consumed 250,000 acres, including our claim. Had we been there this time, we might have been trapped. When it comes to public safety, temporary closures are needed.

It would take a special kind of stupid to go into a fire area just because they can, and the law says they can.

 

[Lanny in AB]

Not unusual that backcountry areas are closed during heavy risk of fires up here, but if they're just randomly closing areas, that's a whole other issue.

Hope they're not making things too difficult for all of you living in California, beautiful state indeed, lots of potential if handled properly.

All the best,

Lanny

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Not unusual that backcountry areas are closed during heavy risk of fires up here, but if they're just randomly closing areas, that's a whole other issue.

Hope they're not making things too difficult for all of you living in California, beautiful state indeed, lots of potential if handled properly.

All the best,

Lanny

It’s a blanket hard closure of EDIT -> 20.2 <- million acres regardless of proximity to fires.

I can understand public safety closures where there is an immediate danger.

Got verification from my local forest....they control the surface access and can apparently sever that access anytime they feel it’s justified. So from their stand point, I must apply for a permit to access my mining claim even though there are no fires within 30 miles.

The purpose of the closure was to protect natural resources and avoid entrapment.

I still don’t think this is legal, but will let it rest I guess. I was hoping Clay would chime in with some case precedence regarding surface rights vs mineral estate. Doesn’t seem right that they can shut down the surface rights on such a large swath of public land.

 

[bug]

I can definitely see these closures in future years becoming permanent on public lands. Code word will be, for the Common Good. Public use will be considered too much a liability except for maybe some pay to use regulated campgrounds.

 

[Goldwasher]

Let’s not forget this is a Federal Government issue.

It's not a federal Gov. issue.

It's state court that these things get caught up in.

I live right where the public lands transition from BLM to F.S. Blm is actuall doing some brush work. The F.S. land is mixed with SPI. The environmental grouups fight them to log before they burn..then when the whole forest is dead from fire they fight them logging that as well.

The forests are federal but it is fires on mixed jurisdiction land pushing the overall closures. We have had so many non locals out in the woods lately it is insane. Trash everywher illegal campfires. parking wherever they want.

They still dont know the exact cause of dozens of these fires.

Watching Blabbin Newscum sit in someones burned down yard and blame climate change is just plain horse crap.

there is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Much more the state(s) could be doing to proactively reduce and prevent the causation of and the overall potential size of these fires.

Unfortunately there are people who make a living based on these "super fires" They wield a lot of power and influence.

When CDF swithced to the CALFIRE model it got even worse.

Calfire is the DMV of firefighting and it really shows.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

The decision to close public lands is a federal decision...the cause of all this mess is another discussion that most of us would probably actually agree on when global warming is taken out of the conversation.

I’m currently sitting under mandatory evacuations for the second time in 2 months...Calfire actually does an excellent job around here putting fires out (especially when compared to these large federally managed fires). They hit them hard and fast with lots of air and ground resources.
Problem is....they are perpetuating the tactic of eliminating fire from our environment, which we have already found out is a disastrous long term strategy.

The feds switch crews out on a regular basis and I’m told by a division chief that the last 3 days of the shift..things are not done because they know the next shift will take care of it.

 

[mikep691]

I'm hoping when all is said and done, reopened and maybe I'll be able to get to my creek on the claim without all the deadfall and dry fuel on the ground. The National forests need to manage timber better, then there wouldn't be the need for closures.