Info On Land Swap and How to Protest It

[hickey]

This file contains maps with the 'checkerboard' scenario played out with a land swap:
http://www.aguacaliente.org/downloads/ICMP.pdf

[Hikin_Jim]

Sunday is the last day to comment...

HJ

[Blue]

Yes, end of the day tomorrow Sunday 3/28/15 is the deadline. Here is where to send comments:
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2015/03/27/agua-caliente-land-exchange-deadline/70570264/

Section 16 is part of Cactus to Clouds and Section 36 encompasses Wildhorse, Shannon, Garstin and other trails. We need to speak up or these treasures may forever beyond the public's free and unencumbered use.

Here is more from a mountain biking association, inlcuding sample letter. NOTE if you use sample letter, please customize it so that it is about hiking and not biking. BLM is already saying that about half the letters are from mountain bikers, (almost as though they are discounting their voice, BLM needs to hear from hikers and walkers!!
http://www.ivmtb.org/news/2015/3/11/we-are-at-risk-of-losing-the-palm-canyon-epic-ride-route-forever

[Brian]

This was a real wake-up call for us desert hikers, but these land grabs are going on all the time, all over the country and planet. Its been over 100 years since the National Park system was created and 50 years since the Wilderness Act was signed into law. In 2015, we are not done yet, we still need to protect and add to the lands that are treasured by nature lovers like yourself and for future generations yet to be born. Don't cut down trees or mine land to spite your political future. Speak up for others, and others will speak up for you!

[guest]

Hi, My friend Pete, who's been working hard on this, received a reply, (finally), from Diane Feinstein:

My comments back to Pete are 1st:
Thanks for this Peter, sounds like she doesn’t really care too much, or there’s back door tactics going on.
Using the checkerboard excuse is bogus in my opinion, especially with such a lop-sided exchange.

And this seems vague & ambiguous.
“According to the EIS, no trailheads will be affected by the exchange, and fewer than ten miles of public trails will be transferred onto tribal lands. Additionally, according to media reports, the Agua Caliente Band's conservation plan states that the tribe will retain the right to develop only 221 of the 5,799 acres affected by the land exchange.”

"The tribes own conservation plan states";….. hummm, sounds like that’s not very binding to me.

BLM will release an additional decision in the future determining the accessibility of all affected trails following any exchange.

Something smells a bit fishing to me.

If in fact Rep Ruiz is on or managing a tribal committee, I doubt he’ll step up, but maybe.


Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

May 13, 2015

Dear Mr. Wascher:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed land swap between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Agua Caliente Band of the Cahuilla Indian tribe. I appreciate the time you took to write and sincerely apologize for the delay in my response.

As you mentioned, there is currently an active BLM proposal to transfer 5,799 acres of public land to the Agua Caliente Band in exchange for 1,470 acres of tribal land. According to BLM, this exchange is meant to improve public and tribal land management by reducing "checkerboard" land ownership in the area.

I understand you have concerns that this exchange will impact how these lands, and particularly the area's hiking trails, are managed. You may be interested to know that BLM recently published an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed exchange that examines the issues of land management and trail access. According to the EIS, no trailheads will be affected by the exchange, and fewer than ten miles of public trails will be transferred onto tribal lands. Additionally, according to media reports, the Agua Caliente Band's conservation plan states that the tribe will retain the right to develop only 221 of the 5,799 acres affected by the land exchange.

The Bureau also noted in its EIS that it is currently working with both the Agua Caliente Band and local officials to develop streamlined regulations for the management of non-motorized trails. BLM will release an additional decision in the future determining the accessibility of all affected trails following any exchange. The Bureau's EIS is currently available online for public view and input. If you have not done so already, I would encourage you to examine the EIS and submit your concerns to BLM directly at on.doi.gov/1yZIGPW. The agency has stated that such comments will influence their final decisions.

Again, thank you for writing, and be assured that I have carefully noted your views. I will keep your letter in mind as I continue to monitor this proposal going forward. Should you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

DF:tg

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, feinstein.senate.gov. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.

[cynthia23]

Thanks for posting this Guest. This is such a deeply discouraging letter. It's as if all of everyone's vociferous protests and well-reasoned arguments--the months and months of work-- hit a totally blank wall. She just spits back the BLM's lines. It feels as if Feinstein, the ACBCI, Ruiz, the BLM, and basically everyone IN POWER has met behind closed doors, decided what they want to do, and are totally indifferent to the wants and needs of the citizenry. There is only a pretence of democratic influence.

If this totally crooked, backroom deal goes forward unchanged, it's time for us to commit mass civil disobedience. We can only change the dialogue with radical actions. No one is going to listen or pay attention otherwise.

[Hikin_Jim]

Of course since the Skyline Trail can be dated back at least to the 1930's as a public right-of-way, the new owners would not have a right, theoretically, to close the trail. Of course it often takes a court challenge to resolve such issues. In terms of civil disobedience, one could just thumb their nose at any future closure or toll. Pay? Make me.

HJ

[Wildhorse]

As Guest wrote, "something smells fishy" for sure. Cynthia described the circumstances well: "Feinstein, the ACBCI, Ruiz, the BLM, and basically everyone IN POWER has met behind closed doors, decided what they want to do, and are totally indifferent to the wants and needs of the citizenry. There is only a pretence of democratic influence." The deal has been rigged from the beginning. In a meeting with Tribal representatives, they explained the rigging, including the closed door, back room meeting at which it began, and the way things have been working at the BLM. From their perspective, the rigging was legitimate. Our government has let us down.

If only the protests that Cynthia describes would occur. It is only political pressure on the BLM and bad PR for the Tribe that can stop this.

[Wildhorse]

Hiking Jim -

My understanding from discussions with BLM and other government agencies and with lawyers have indicated that the new owners will have unfettered rights to do anything they want to do because the Tribe is a government entity, essentially a foreign nation, and that the public and U.S. government will have virtually no legal way to challenge anything the Tribe may do in this regard. That unfettered right has been a particular concern of US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as of others. The Tribe and the BLM have played hardball over this. Basically they are saying that they are moving ahead anyway and saying that no one can stop them.

At the same time, I don't recall anyone raising public right-of-way as an issue. That may be another matter that the BLM would need to address before approving the exchange. We are past the comment deadline now for the draft EIS, but it may be worth submitting this comment now anyway.

The BLM and the Tribe seek to nullify any preexisting rights. They have been given the green light by the politicians in Washington.

[wtchen]

You're right. Under California law, the new owners would be subject to California law, which requires them to provide an easement. As an Indian tribe, the new owners would not be subject to those laws. Of course, the BLM could negotiate a deal under federal jurisdiction requiring them to provide an easement. But who knows, the tribe could argue that they need a water tank right in the middle of the trail.

Hopefully the tribe doesn't shut it down completely like they did with Kitching Peak. Though of course the two situations are quite different.

Worse comes to worst, at least the trail could be re-routed somewhat. San Jacinto seems to be getting a lot of land use issues lately, with the whole Snow Creek problem and now this. Combined with the PCT closures and it seems like many miles of trail are constantly being lost.