Land Swap Back In News

[halhiker]

The next phase of the BLM-Aqua Caliente land swap is back in the news. Public comments are again being taken. Contact info is in the article. This swap is a huge rip off of the public and should be opposed, IMO. It also affects many local trails. It is probably inevitable considered the power the Tribe wields in the area but it's a horrible deal for the public. I'm amazed anyone would think it serves the public interest.

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/env ... um=twitter

[Florian]

The full document is available here ..

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmspri ... eriod.html

-Florian

[Sally]

I am very anxious about this. It definitely seems like a rip-off to me, too. I have been wanting a chance to really look at the document so that I might be able to make an intelligent response, as I personally received a letter from the powers that be asking for my input. The document makes my head spin. I don't know if it would make more sense to me if I were to go and get a law degree or maybe drink half a bottle of wine. The latter option sounds easier.

[cynthia23]

Don't feel bad Sally, I got the e-document last week and have yet to tackle reading it. I'm hoping Wildhorse will post soon and let us know his thoughts as he's very good at reading BLM docs. But overall from the Desert Sun article it sounds like very bad news. What's astounding is the BLM got nothing but negative comments from the public yet sailed right ahead without changing the swap in any way.

Hal and Florian, thank you so much for posting this.

[KathyW]

I wonder if anyone has thought of putting easements in place that would allow public access along the existing trails to continue after the transfer? The land probably isn't part of the reservation if it is managed by BLM. I guess I'll look at those maps again to satisfy my curiosity.

[KathyW]

I found my answer: "Since changes to trail management under Tribal ownership are not anticipated in the near term as previously described, deed restrictions on the public lands conveyed to the Tribe are not clearly supported."

Source: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/c ... ternatives).pdf

BLM is putting a lot of faith in trail management remaining the same under Tribal ownership.

It looks like Section 36 will be left out.

A lot is riding on appraised values.

[zippetydude]

Hmmm, who is paying the appraiser? Also, land that we can readily access has much more value - although not necessarily $ trade value - than inaccessible plots. This whole thing is so obviously an abuse of wealth and power it shocks me.

z

[Florian]

It looks like Section 36 will be left out.

Kathy, why do you say section 36 will be left out? (The one adjacent to Andreas Hills, not the one south in the canyon.) I see it's still on the scenario 3 exchange map. (I haven't read the text yet.) Section 36 is really the only section i'm worried about. And i'm REALLY worried about it. Seems it would be prime land for expensive mountainside homes similar to the Ritz Carlton and Southridge areas. Section 16 that includes part of the Skyline trail doesn't seem developable to me.

-Florian

[KathyW]

"The preferred alternative is identical to the proposed action, except that it eliminates all public lands in section 36, T.4S. R.4E., from the land exchange in order to better conform to the stated purpose and need for the land exchange."

Here is the map of the preferred alternative with 36, 4S, 4E left out:
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/c ... lternative).pdf

It seems like the preferred alternative gets picked fairly often in the end after all the public comments are collected in these planning sessions involving the federal government and public land. It often feels like they have already made up their mind and don't really want to collect comments. At the same time, it is still important to speak up. I guess it might be a good idea to let BLM know they preferred alternative is a better option than the original proposal if there has to be a land swap, but no swap at all would be the best option.

More info: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/c ... ternatives).pdf

Here's what BLM says about the preferred alternative:

"As described in the response to issue question c(i) in section 1.4 of this draft EIS, the transfer of
public lands in section 36, T.4S. R.4E., to the Tribe would be inconsistent with the purpose and
need for the action, i.e., rather than maximize the size of a consolidated block of public lands in
order to enhance management effectiveness and efficiency, the transfer would reduce the
potential size of a consolidated block of public lands from approximately 14,614 acres to about
14,106 acres upon implementation of the proposed land exchange, thereby possibly reducing
management effectiveness and efficiency. The preferred alternative retains all public lands in
section 36 in public ownership, which more closely aligns with the stated purpose and need for
the land exchange. While it represents the BLM’s likely choice for a decision at this time, the
agency’s final decision may or may not be the preferred alternative, depending on public input,
additional information received during the public comment period for this draft EIS, and outcome
of the land value equalization process."

[KathyW]

Federal Register with contact info:

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... d-exchange