Urgent!Palm Springs trails / Skyline threatened by land swap

[guest]

I found this by google, it explains briefly some of the motives behind this.

BLM Extends Comment Period for Proposed Land Exchange with Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is extending the public comment period on a proposed land exchange with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to October 15, 2010. The proposed land exchange would occur within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.

The proposed land exchange implements provisions of a 1999 agreement between the tribe and BLM for coordination and cooperation in the management of federal lands within the monument and a Memorandum of Understanding for acquisition and exchange of lands within the monument. The proposed exchange will facilitate effective and efficient management of the monument by consolidating the land base and reducing the extent of “checkerboard” land ownership.

For the tribe, the exchange will support the resource preservation goals of the Indian Canyons Master Plan and the effective implementation of its Tribal Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, currently in draft form, by placing the exchange lands under tribal management.

Comments on an environmental assessment of the proposal are now being accepted through October 15, 2010. The EA is available on the Palm Springs Field Office website at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings.html, click on BLM-Agua Caliente Land Exchange. Send comments to John R. Kalish, Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262.

For more information, contact Diane Gomez, Realty Specialist, at (760) 833-7152.

[Cy Kaicener]

The Coachella Valley hiking club also has links covering this.
http://www.deserthiker.typepad.com/

[guest]

Hi fellow hikers,

Thanks to everyone who continues to voice their concern.

Here's a well written letter a friend of mine has sent to several agencies.

I have also compiled a list of contacts of heads of agencies.



Ref: CA-060-0010-0005
Land Exchange (BLM & Tribe)

Dear Mr. Kalish,

Having read the 48-page document on the above dated July 27, 2010, I am impressed but confused.

There is no question from the practical side having the BLM and Tribe being on the same page in Land Management and cooperating to that end. However, I can’t see the benefit for current public land under BLM mgt. being given to the Tribe for considerable less land in size and value exchanged to the BLM.

Cutting to the chase, this 48 page document of legal language, and extensive documentation is a work of art to set the stage for a land exchange that benefits a few at the expense of many.

With a deadline of Oct. 15 for public comment, which was extended from Sept. 15, I’d like to vehemently register my objection against this land exchange. All of the background activity dating back to Oct. 1999 has not been made public to interested parties till of late. It was a small article in a recent Desert Sun that made this action more of a public issue.

This subject is of such importance that wide publication should be given by the BLM and Tribe to the media for public comments. I’d suggest that March 15, 2011 be established to gather public comments. This would give ample time for those who would be impacted by the exchange to air their feelings.

On page 4 of the document “NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION” the wording fails to making a case for the exchange. Taking land out of public use, now under BLM control, and placing it with the Tribe for jurisdiction under the Indian Canyons Master Plan is no guarantee of free use of existing trails etc… What is the Indian Canyon Master Plan? The language on the last paragraph on page 34, makes me fear for the continued free use of existing trails for the general public.

Yes, I am a hiker and enjoy the use of all the trails in the Coachella Valley both on private property, BLM land and in the Indian Canyons. The Tribe is a great asset to the community and are good stewards to their reservation property, but I still see no justification to this proposed land exchange.

Yours truly,

Cutler Lewis

cc: United State Dept. of Interior
Jim Abbott, BLM Jurisdiction
Teri Raml, California Desert District
Senator Mary Bono Mack
Desert Sun




Here's some address' I've complied.

JIM ABBOTT , ACTING STATE DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION
2800 COTTAGE WAY, SUITE W-1834
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
Director@blm.gov

TERI RAML, DISTRICT MGR.
CALIFORNIA DESERT DISTRICT
22835 CALLE SAN JUAN DE LOS LAGOS
MORENO VALLEY, CA 992553
http://www.blm.gov/ca/forms/feedback/index.php?fo=6

CONGRESSWOMAN MARY BONO MACK
104 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BLDG.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
https://bono.house.gov/Contact_Mary/ContactForm.htm

CONGRESSWOMAN MARY BONO MACK
707 E. TAHQUITZ CYN WY., STE 9
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262

MR. MARK J. WINKLER
PRESIDENT & PUBLISHER
THE DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CO.
750 N. GENE AUTRY TRAIL
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
http://www.mydesert.com/section/FEEDBACK

MR. BOB ABBEY, BLM DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
1849 C. ST., NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Director@blm.gov


Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
feedback@ios.doi.gov

City of Palm Springs Planning:
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon WayStaff conducting a final site inspection
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone: (760) 323-8245
Fax: (760) 322-8360
TDD: (760) 864-9527
http://www.palmspringsca.gov/index.aspx ... g+Services

[Blooty]

Do the Indians really need another casino - with a view? Can't imagine what else they'll do with it.

I wrote in my .02 to what's his name at the BLM. I've dealt with them before, crooks.

[towerthree]

Just saw a quick report on channel 2 news talking about the potential land exchange. They interviewed someone from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians saying that there would be no changes in access to the land. Anyway, at least it's now getting more coverage.

[cynthia23]

Right on, Guest, for this excellent list of contacts. Write 'em all! And Blooty, don't discount your two cents. if enough of us write we could 'add up' to a game-changing amount of spare change. In your letters, it helps, I think, to mention specific harms that will come from this exchange: elimination of many miles of mountain-biking trails; restriction or even closure of the world-famous Skyline trail and the tourism dollars it brings to the valley; restriction of the many Araby area trailheads to which the public now enjoys free and simple access. Why, at a time when fewer Americans than ever before recreate outside (our State and National Parks get fewer and fewer visitors), would we want to make it harder for people to take a hike or bike ride? Why, at a time when Palm Springs is hurting for tourist dollars and downtown is struggling, restrict access to our most famous trail? What possible public good comes from this exchange?

[cynthia23]

Oops, just saw TowerThree's report. Thanks for posting that. The AC tribe may say there will be no change in access: ok, then, why are they going to all the trouble of making these exchange? There must be some point to it, and I suspect the point is development opportunities (for the tribe) and eliminating the Skyline rescue hassles (for the BLM/county.) I have it on good authority from someone we all know and greatly respect that there have been inter-agency meetings to discuss "what are we going to do about Skyline?" They can't just shrug off four fatalities in six months. it has to be costing the county plenty, and there could even be survivor lawsuits because the BLM doesn't really regulate SKyline. I'm no lawyer, but I can see some kind of 'attractive nuisance' argument ...bottom line, they included most of the local trails with some intention in mind, and logically, it must increased regulation. Even if the AC say there will be no change in access, there are all kinds of ways of stopping people from accessing it, while still keeping within the general guidelines.

[Hikin_Jim]

Saying don't necessarily make it so. Obama's been saying we're in a recovery. Big foreclosure numbers last month if I understood what NPR was saying last night.

Having someone getting on TV and making a statement isn't legally binding. If there isn't something written into a legally binding document, then it's just so much hot air.

HJ

[EMan]

A few thoughts at 3 AM after reading the document. Please note that I am not an Esq. and I am presenting this as my personal assessment of the most salient issues:

1) It looks to be a done deal since the EA was approved and this has been in the works for quite a while.

2) There is a loophole to cover approval in spite of the [acknowledged] uneven value of the exchanged parcels of property: "Depending on appraisal values, the management plan allows for additional lands to be identified for transfer to the United States". To be determined? This is as comforting to me as having confidence in Bell's management...

Naturally, this is presented in a footnote. #3 reads as follows:
"Need for a second phase of the exchange was predicated on a preliminary assessment that the anticipated appraised value of the BLM lands identified for exchange exceeds the anticipated appraised value of the Tribal lands indentified for exchange, therefore necessitating the acquisition of additional lands by the Tribe to complete the overall exchange".

3) This wording is also problematic IMO:

"Neither the BLM nor the Tribe proposes development or other land disturbing activities on the exchange parcels at this time" [emphasis added]. The document "justifies" this statement by stating that "It should be noted, however, that the lands to be exchanged from the BLM to the Tribe exhibit low development potential due to remoteness and steepness". However, the EA goes on to state that "As a condition of the exchange in accordance with the THCP, the Tribe would limit development potential to 221 acres (3.8 percent) of the 5,799 acres of lands acquired from the BLM, but the location of such potential development is not specified" [emphasis added].

4) The document addresses access issues thusly: "Upon approval of the land exchange, trail segments located in sections 16 and 36, now managed by the BLM, would be managed by the Tribe. Currently, permits are not required for use of the trails within Section 36, but a permit will be required for access to the Skyline Trail in Section 16 upon BLM’s issuance of a decision for the federal land portion of the multi-jurisdictional trails plan addressed in the CVMSHCP. The proposed land exchange has the potential to impact access to these trails, and the creation of new trails" [emphasis again provided by yours truly].

5) Here's potentially the rub of most concern to us here on this board, though:

"Existing trails within the project area that are currently managed by the BLM would be transferred to Tribal ownership. The Draft THCP includes a Trail Management Plan which addresses the maintenance and construction of trails. The Draft THCP also allows trails within conservation areas, based on the same criteria and standards required for other uses. The Indian Canyons Master Plan, which includes lands currently used for trails, supports various types of low impact recreation activities, including hiking and horseback riding. As part of the exchange, the BLM and Tribe have approved a management agreement addressing sections 16 and 36, Township 4 South, Range 4 East, upon which public trail access has been identified as an issue (Appendix B). The management agreement stipulates that such exchange lands shall remain accessible and subject to the reasonable use and enjoyment by the general public, and the Tribe may adopt rules and regulations for the use and enjoyment of the exchange lands that conform to and are consistent with the policies and guidelines set forth in the Indian Canyons Master Plan and the THCP, and with similar measures now in effect regarding existing Tribal Reserves [emphasis added]. The management agreement also requires that the Tribe maintain existing facilities, including trails, through the life of the management agreement. This includes all trail segments shown in Table 5 (see “Affected Environment”), which will be transferred from the BLM to the Tribe. The long- term maintenance of these facilities will assure that these facilities will not be impacted by the proposed exchange.

Under the CVMSHCP trails plan, which sets management parameters for the BLM on trails within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, trails are required to operate within specific restrictions, including the prohibition of dogs on most trails, seasonal prohibition on cross-country travel and camping from January 1 to September 30, and prohibition of bicycles on selected trails. Under the requirements of the THCP, the provisions are equivalent or more stringent: dogs and bicycles are prohibited altogether, and cross-country travel and camping are prohibited year-round" [one 'mo time emphasis added].

"Provisions of the management agreement assure that existing trails within the exchange lands, and potential new trails which may be constructed in the future, would remain open for public use, except as noted above with respect to bicycles. The management agreement requires that the Tribe maintain existing facilities, including trails, through the life of the management agreement, which ensures that these facilities will not be impacted by the proposed exchange, and that the network of trails in and around the proposed exchange lands will remain intact".

So I guess you will have to stay on a trail -- for which you will need a permit that you probably won't be able to get in advance -- just like Snow Creek...

6) At the end of the day, having the Tribe own this property might be far preferable than having the land remain under BLM control. If we could only ensure restrictions on development in the future and guaranty that reasonable access was stipulated in perpetuity by the agreement....

Sorry for being long winded here. I hope my synopsis was useful.

[Hikin_Jim]

A very helpful synopsis, E-man. I am NOT liking those provisions. NO travel Jan 1 - Sept. 30. Goodbye spring Skyline. No XC travel. Yuck. And I definitely don't want to have to wait until 9:00 or whatever to get a permit -- heck I don't want to have to get a permit, period.

HJ