Here's an update based on what I know:
From the earlier posts in this thread, a bunch of people sent emails which raised a ton of issues with the BLM/Indian land swap. Based on this response, which was almost completely against the swap, BLM's response is that they must respond to all the concerns raised by the public with an additional Environmental Impact Report (EIR). They sent out an email to everyone who contacted them with a list of the public concerns raised. I could not attach that document here, but pasted in as a quote below (bottom).
The two meetings that were scheduled in late March were for the public to identify any additional issues that were not already identified in the list below. So the meetings were not meant to re-hash old concerns, only new stuff. If you were not able to attend either meeting there is also the opportunity to submit such new concerns to the BLM via email by April 27 2012 to the email below:
Email to send comments to is
AguaCalienteExchange@blm.govThe meetings were on a weekday so most people myself included were not able to attend. But from what I've heard, BLM is pretty much dismissive of any criticism and thinks the exchange is great. Everyone from the public seems to disagree. I will quote a great response with typical reaction, here:
Quote:
I was at both meetings. It wasn't encouraging. Our best hope is political protest, because adminstrative measures aren't going to work. The BLM isn't going to respond to anything except an outburst of negative publicity. Write Bono-Mack and Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Point out that the BLM's behavior has been improper, even illegal. Although required to by their own regulations, they haven't had an appraisal of the lands to be exchanged; they didn't hold public meetings after the initial feasibility study in 2001 (again, they're required to), and they didn't prepare an "issues' paper after the (public hearings they didn't have). They falsely told people that there was nothing the public could do because Congress had mandated the exchange. (it hasn't.) They released notice of the proposal in the "Public Notices" section of the newspaper, instead of issuing a press release. They released the EA at the beginning of August,when no one is in Palm Springs, with only a thirty day comment period. And the EA is highly defective in so many ways: although it claims the need for the exchange is "improved management" it doesn't cite a single example of any problems with the current land layout; it does not deal with the obvious development potential of 36 or the effect on wildlife. And last but not least, the BLM is in a crony-like relationship with the Agua Caliente that is totally improper. An example is the location of last week's scoping meeting, which was held at the Spa Hotel (owned and operated by the Agua Caliente.) When an attendee at the meeting mentioned her discomfort with the venue, Jim Foote said, without a trace of concern, that they used it because the AC had given the venue to them for free. I was shocked. The DOI ethics page explicitly forbids accepting gifts from "prohibited sources'--i.e. people who stand to benefit from a BLM proposal. When I brought up this gift at the second meeting, Foote was totally nonplussed--it hadn't even occured to them that there was anything unethical in accepting gifts from the tribe while simultaneously negotiating an eighty million dollar land giveaway to them. "We don't consider this a gift," he said. Uh, really? Because if I wanted to rent the Canyon Conference room, it would cost me a several hundred dollars, Jim. We have filed a complaint with the GAO. I advise all of you to not focus on the minor points of this (i.e. "Will the Thielman trail still allow mountain biking?") because if this goes through, within twenty years there won't be a Thielman trail, there will be McMansions there and another Bighorn or La Mirada type development. This is fraud and theft on a massive scale. Write loud, angry letters. Don't be polite, people. It's okay to yell when a mugger tries to grab your wallet.
Sorry for long quote but I was not able to attach the word doc sent out. Here is the BLM's summary of issues. Please read through and if you see anything not there that you think is an issue, please email BLM by Fri Apr 27 2012. I will try to post up some more sample emails tomorrow to make it easier to respond. If you like these trails, please help preserve our access to them by opposing this land swap!
An example of the additional concern I will be raising is what specific improvement in management of the swapped lands do the BLM and tribe anticipate; they say this swap will make management more efficient, but do not give examples of how. Since more efficiednt land management is a major goal of the swap they need to address the question of specifically how they will change or improve management of the swapped land. Right now there appears to be little active management; how will this change?
Quote:
Identification of Issues
The purpose of public scoping with respect to the proposed land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) is to identify issues and impacts to be addressed during preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
For the purpose of analysis when preparing the Environmental Impact Statement in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an issue:
• has a cause and effect relationship with the proposed action or alternatives;
• is within the scope of the analysis;
• has not been decided by law, regulation, or previous decision; and
• is amenable to scientific analysis rather than conjecture.
The issues identified below and presented in the form of questions were extracted from public comments submitted to the BLM regarding Environmental Assessment No. CA-060-0010-0005, which addressed the proposed land exchange between the BLM and the Tribe; this Environmental Assessment was released for public review and comment on July 27, 2010. In response to public comments and upon further internal review, it was determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary to address potentially significant impacts to the human environment that could result from the proposed land exchange. The issues identified below will be considered when preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.
The primary purpose of the public scoping period ending April 27, 2012, therefore, is to identify issues that are not included below to ensure that analyses presented in the Environmental Impact Statement address all significant issues pertaining to the proposed land exchange.
1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Land Exchange
a. How would the proposed land exchange facilitate effective management of federal and Tribal lands through consolidation of lands and reduction of checkerboard land ownership, particularly with respect to sections 16 and 36 (T4S R4E)?
b. The BLM’s acquisition of a majority of section 1 (T5S R4E) in 2010, which is contiguous with section 36 (T4S R4E), occurred after the potential exchange parcels were identified. How would this acquisition affect the stated purpose and need for the proposed land exchange relative to consolidation of lands and reduction of checkerboard land ownership to enhance management effectiveness?
c. What public benefit would be derived from the proposed land exchange, and how would it achieve the purposes for which the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument was established in accordance with Public Law 106-351 (October 24, 2000)?
d. How would the proposed land exchange support the resource preservation goals of the Indian Canyons Master Plan and effective implementation of the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan?
2. Plan Conformance
a. How does the proposed land exchange conform to BLM’s California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended, particularly with respect to public opportunities for recreation immediately adjacent to desert communities?
b. How can the public be assured that upon transfer of BLM lands to the Tribe, terms of the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP) will be implemented and enforced, including limitations on the extent of development described in the THCP?
c. How would the disposal of section 36 (T5S R4E), in which BLM determined certain lands were eligible for designation of a Wild and Scenic River through its California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the Coachella Valley (2002), conform to the Plan Amendment and be consistent with statutory requirements to protect the values which comprise the basis for the eligibility determination?
3. Public Notice and Participation
a. How will the BLM provide for effective public participation throughout the land exchange process?
b. How will the BLM involve the City of Palm Springs in addressing the management of trails that extend outside the exchange parcels, particularly in sections 16 and 36 (T4S R4E)?
4. Regulatory Land Exchange Process
a. How does the proposed land exchange conform to federal regulations?
b. How will the BLM involve the Department of the Interior’s Appraisal Services Directorate?
5. Equity and the Land Appraisal Process
a. How will equity (land values) be addressed through the proposed land exchange process?
b. How will the public be afforded an opportunity to assess fairness and public benefit of the proposed exchange?
c. How will access rights to federal lands be considered when determining appraised value of the public lands and the public benefits to be accrued from the proposed land exchange?
d. How would the land appraisal process consider the unique location and recreational value of public lands to be exchanged, particularly with regards to section 36 (T4S R4E) which is contiguous with the City of Palm Springs and section 16 (T4S R4E) containing the nationally important Skyline Trail?
e. Could the Tribe use lands acquired from the BLM to mitigate environmental effects of developing other lands outside the National Monument, and could this result in more development than would be possible without the exchange? How would use of the transferred BLM lands to mitigate development elsewhere, which may increase the value of the land surrendered by the BLM, be addressed in the land appraisal process?
6. Recreational Public Access
a. How would public access to trails change under the proposed land exchange, particularly with respect to trails in sections 16 and 36 (T4S R4E) and section 36 (T5S R4E), considering potential for fee requirements, closures, temporal access limitations, and restrictions on forms of access (e.g., via bicycle)?
b. How would the trails management plan element of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan be affected by the proposed land exchange, particularly with respect to construction of the proposed Garstin to Thielman perimeter trail and its use by hikers with dogs?
7. Environmental Analysis
a. How will the likely foreseeable use of lands the Tribe would acquire from the BLM be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, particularly with respect to development, public access, and wildlife?
b. Will alternatives in addition to the no action alternative be identified in the Environmental Impact Statement, including alternatives that identify mitigation in the form of reserved federal rights or interests for public access in the exchanged lands, and variations of properties to be included in the exchange, such as BLM’s retention of sections 16 and 36 (T4S R4E)?
c. How will the Environmental Impact Statement address the manner in which the network of trails within and adjacent to exchange lands would be managed under different alternatives?
d. How would implementation of the Indian Canyons Master Plan and Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan on lands acquired from the BLM affect the public’s reasonable use and enjoyment of the existing trail system?
e. How will the Environmental Impact Statement assess not just the quantitative aspects of trail mileage gained or lost due to the land exchange, but evaluate qualitative characteristics such as aesthetics, variety, steepness, condition, and ecology that establish a trail’s importance to the public?
f. How will the BLM ensure that the inventory of trails affected by the land exchange and addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement is complete, including trails that have not been mapped but are currently used?
g. How will the Environmental Impact Statement address public opportunities to hike cross-country and on “social” trails, that is, those trails established by use, not construction?
h. How will the Environmental Impact Statement address current and future levels of trail use?
i. How will the agreement between the Tribe and BLM regarding the management of exchange lands, approved in 2009, be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, particularly with respect to public access to recreational trails and its potential termination upon a one-year notice?
j. What will be the basis of analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement with respect to impacts to threatened and endangered species, and to what extent will the environmental document prepared for the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan be used for such analysis? How will consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this regard affect the decision-making process?
k. Will the inventory of threatened and endangered species, as well as maps of critical and modeled wildlife habitats, be updated to ensure that potentially beneficial and adverse impacts are accurately characterized?
l. In light of the allowance for limited development of lands under the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan, how will the Environmental Impact Statement address the circumstance that development potential on lands acquired by the Tribe are not uniformly spread across all lands due to terrain constraints, instead being concentrated where development potential exists, such as the eastern portion of section 36 (T4S R4E)? How will the types, intensity, and location of development potential on lands acquired by the Tribe from the BLM, and vice-versa, be addressed?
m. How will the Environmental Impact Statement address BLM and Tribal management costs of the affected parcels before and after the exchange, as well as the economic values of the exchange lands as relate to development potential?
n. How will the Environmental Impact Statement address water rights?
o. Where changes to the status or condition of certain elements addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement may not be anticipated as a result of the proposed land exchange, such as changes to air quality, noise, visual resources, and the health and safety of children, how would the Environmental Impact Statement characterize impacts? Would the lack of anticipated change to these elements be equated with no impact?
Protection of Wildlife and Habitat Issues
a. How would the proposed land exchange provide adequate protection for threatened and endangered species and their habitats to ensure both their survival and recovery?
b. Upon exchanging lands as proposed, how would recreational trail access be properly regulated to ensure it does not adversely affect Peninsular bighorn sheep, particularly during the lambing season?
c. How would potential adverse effects to listed species be mitigated and a net overall positive impact be achieved as a result of the proposed land exchange?
