June 28, 2003
Director
(210), Attention: Brenda Williams
Fax:
(202) 452-5112
Re: Formal Protest of Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Management Plan (RAMP) and Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Ms. Williams:
This firm represents the American Sand Association (“ASA”), the Off-Road Business Association (“ORBA”), and the San Diego Off-Road Coalition (“SDORC”) on land use and environmental matters affecting the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (“ISDRA”). On behalf of ASA, ORBA, and SDORC, we hereby submit the following Protest of BLM’s decision to adopt the ISDRA Recreation Area Management Plan (“RAMP”) and its accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). The reasons for the Protest are set forth below.
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By letters dated
What the protesting parties find especially frustrating is that neither the RAMP nor the EIS (nor, for that matter, the Biological Opinion for the RAMP) deals honestly with the scientific data recently developed on the PMV. These data show that the plant is thriving and is supported by a well-stocked and constantly replenished seed bank. When climatic conditions are suitable (i.e., when there is sufficient rainfall in the dunes), these seeds germinate and tens of thousands of new plants poke through the dune crust, flower, and drop seeds, completing the reproductive cycle. In 2001, biologist Arthur Phillips, Ph.D and his staff counted nearly 72,000 individual PMV plants in ISDRA’S open riding areas alone. Unfortunately, BLM neglected or ignored this information when it developed the RAMP and EIS.
A. The EIS for the RAMP is Inadequate
1.
Trespass Into
2. Multiple Use Doctrine of FLPMA Encourages Outdoor Recreation. The FEIS quotes FLPMA's "multiple use" doctrine as support for the RAMP's resource protection policies. (FEIS, at 19.) However, the quotation is incomplete and therefore misleading, as it fails to disclose that FLPMA's multiple use doctrine also mandates that BLM provide for public recreation. The full and accurate quotation is as follows: "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that... (8) the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in the natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use." (43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8)). (Emphasis added.)
3. “Interim” Closure Process. The FEIS fails to disclose that BLM agreed to the interim dune closures prior to assessing the environmental impacts (both individual and cumulative) of those closures. (FEIS, at 21-22)
4. The ISDRA “Interim” Closure. The FEIS fails to disclose that in November 2000, BLM shut down 49,300 acres of the ISDRA without NEPA review, without an "emergency" finding, and without public input. (FEIS, at 21-22)
5. History of the ISDRA RAMP Development Process. The FEIS fails to disclose that the public's involvement in the RAMP development process, which began in 1998, came to a halt in March 2000 when the Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD") filed suit against BLM. The settlement stipulation and "interim" closures which resulted from the lawsuit were never vetted through a public process. To suggest otherwise, as the FEIS does at page 1-11, is to mislead the public.
6. Recent Abundance Data on Special Status Plants. The three "special status" plants identified in the-FEIS the Peirson's Milk Vetch ("PMV"), sand food, and Algodones Dunes Sunflower-have already been monitored extensively throughout the ISDRA. These studies show that (1) the plants are more abundant in the proposed Adaptive Management Area ("AMA") today than they were in 1977, and (2) OHV use in the proposed AMA is light to moderate and does not adversely affect the plants of concern. These conclusions were confirmed by the report issued by Thomas Olsen & Associates ("TOA") in July 2001. Based on these data, there is no need for the proposed AMA, unless future monitoring shows a dramatic reversal in plant abundance in these portions of the dunes.
7. Camping Capacity. The FEIS states that visitor demand exceeds campsite capacity on major holidays; however, the FEIS does not quantify campsite "capacity" or indicate how much it is surpassed on the dates in question. Also, the formula used to derive capacity is not adequately explained; nor is it supported by empirical data.
8. Threats to the PMV. The FEIS states incorrectly that OHV use is the primary threat to the PMV. (FEIS, at 114.) BLM studies (November 2000 and June 2001), as well as the TOA Report (July 2001), flatly dispute this claim. Note also that the 1990 ECOS study, which formed the basis of the 1998 listing of the PMV as threatened, has been abandoned by BLM due to its biased sampling methodology. (See BLM Plant Monitoring Report, November 2000). Simply put, the FEIS is legally defective for not explaining that recent data obtained through (1) BLM's plant surveys and (2) the TOA plant census show OHVs are not a significant threat to the PMV.
9. Threats to Other Sensitive Plants. As with OHV impacts on the PMV, the FEIS grossly overstates the OHV threat to the Algodones Dunes sunflower Wiggins Croton, Giant Spanish Needle, and Sand Food. (FEIS, at 114-120.) BLM’s monitoring reports (November 2000 and June 2001) do not support this claim.
10. The 1990 ECOS Study. The FEIS fails to disclose that BLM has essentially abandoned the 1990 ECOS Study due to its sampling bias. (FEIS, at 130.)
11. Threats to the Desert Tortoise. At page 131, The FEIS provides a misleading discussion of threats to the Desert tortoise. The best available data indicate that Upper Respiratory Tract Disease ("URTD") and raven predation are by far the leading cause of Desert Tortoise mortality. Conversely, there is no convincing data that habitat loss and fragmentation have had a significant adverse effect on tortoise populations. Indeed, despite closing more than 1 million acres of the CDCA for the benefit of the tortoise, the species continues to decline due to disease. The studies cited in the FEIS on this issue are outdated and largely rebutted by recent, readily, available scientific literature.
12. Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Habitat. The FEIS incorrectly states that the FTHL inhabits sand dunes. (FEIS, at 132.) In fact, lizard surveys have established that sand dunes are not preferred habitat for the FTHL.
13. OHV Impacts on the FTHL. The FEIS suggests that OHVs are a substantial threat to the FTHL. (FEIS, at 133.) However, there is little or no data showing that OHV use has, contributed to any perceived declines in FTHL populations. In fact, there is no support for BLM's assertion that the FTHL is declining at all.
14. OHV Impacts on the LeConte's Thrasher. According to the FEIS, OHVs are a significant threat to the LeConte's Thrasher. However, there is no data showing that OHV use actually harms the Le Conte's thrasher or destroys its habitat. The statements set forth in the FEIS are pure speculation.
15.
Study
Area for Socio-Economic Impacts Analysis. The study area for the FEIS's
socioeconomic impact analysis is too small. At a minimum, it should include
16. Local v. Non Local Expenditures. The FEIS states that "only expenditures by non-local visitors represent injections of new dollars into the regional economy." This is false; or rather, misses the point. The fact is, if OHV opportunities are curtailed, all spending - both local and non-local - will be reduced, resulting in a severe economic impact.
17. Dune Tracks are Ephemeral. The FEIS should disclose that OHV tracks in sand dunes are highly ephemeral and remain visible only for a short period of time. (FEIS, at 180.)
18. Air Quality. There are no air quality monitoring data to support claim that OHVs are a significant source of Ozone, NO, CO, and PM10, in the SSAB. (FEIS, at 213.) For one thing, the closest monitoring station is 20 miles from the ISDRA, so there is no way for that station to collect air quality data from the planning area. In addition, agricultural activities and natural wind disturbance would appear to be the largest sources of PM,
19. Recreation Impacts of Alternative 1. No study or data support the statement that increased visitation under Alternative 1 will cause "compatibility issues" between "those seeking a more solitary experience and those users dispersed into lower-use areas due to overcrowding." (FEIS, at 238.) Given the large size of the "open" area under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), there should be plenty of room to accommodate projected visitor growth without significant encroachment into the more primitive/less crowded portions of ISDRA.
20. Opportunities for Lower Intensity Use. The FEIS suggests that under baseline conditions [Alternative 1], opportunities for lower intensity recreational activity (e.g., as characterized by the semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural ROS classes) would eventually be diminished due to overcrowding. However, no data are offered in support of this assertion. As indicated above, the No Action Alternative maximizes the amount of acreage open to motorized recreation, and thus will be able to accommodate the most growth. Significant opportunities for low-intensity recreation will remain, as many remote areas of the dunes will be open to visitors who desire a more primitive, less crowded desert experience. The data show that most of the visitor growth at ISDRA since 1985 has not been in the remote dunes, but in the popular "competition" and staging areas nearest the main access roads. This trend is likely to continue in the future. Note also that the overcrowding problem, to the extent it will arise at all, will exist only during four or five holiday weekends. The rest of the time, visitor levels will be low throughout ISDRA.
21.
22.
23. ROS Classifications. It is ironic that BLM, through the proposed RAMP, is devising such extensive controls to provide for more "primitive/low-intensity" recreational experiences when the number of visitors who desire this kind of experience is extremely low. Further, existing natural conditions currently provide more than adequate space for primitive/low-intensity recreation in much of the ISDRA. Therefore, there is no need for the additional ROS controls proposed in the RAMP.
24. OHV Impacts to Biological Resources Under Alternative 1. The FEIS claims that OHVs would continue to have adverse impacts on special status plants, such as the PMV and Sand Food. (FEIS, at 252.) However, the FEIS once again fails to disclose and explain that these special status plants actually increased in abundance between 1977 and 2001, despite a ten-fold growth in OHV use. Further, the increase in plant numbers has been more pronounced in the "open" areas than in the closed areas. These plant population trends are described in BLM's own monitoring studies from November 2000 and June 2001, and confirmed in the TOA Report dated July 2001. In short, the BLM studies and the TOA Report demonstrate that OHV use does not negatively affect the PMV or other special status plants of the ISDRA. These facts should be - but are not - clearly disclosed and discussed in of the FEIS. By failing to include such a discussion, the FEIS is inadequate under NEPA and misleads the public.
25.
OHV
Impacts on Special Status Wildlife Under Alternative 1. The FEIS claims
that OHVs create negative impacts on certain special status wildlife species,
including the FTHL and the Fringe-toed lizard. (FEIS, at 252-253.)
However, there are no data demonstrating that OHV use in the ISDRA kills
these species, crushes their burrows, or otherwise contributes to any real or
perceived decline in their populations. Note also that Gavin Wright of BLM's
26. OHV Impacts on Dune Beetle. The FEIS claims that dune beetles at the ISDRA "would be killed or injured by OHV activity" under Alternative 1. (FEIS, at 253.) Again, the FEIS fails to cite any data in support of this claim. In suggesting that such impacts have occurred and will continue to occur if Alternative 1 is adopted, the FEIS misleads the public and the decision-makers.
27.
OHV
Impacts on Desert Tortoise and Couch's Spadefoot Toad. The FEIS states
that OHVs driving through desert wash areas may kill Desert Tortoises and
destroy their burrows. (FEIS, at 253.) The
FEIS then claims that this same activity may have adverse effects on the Couch's
spadefoot toad, which occasionally breed in the ephemeral ponds that develop in
wash areas. (
28.
Assumptions
Regarding Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat. The FEIS states that "for the
29.
Flat-tailed
Horned Lizard Cells. According to the FEIS, BLM tallied the "number
of cells (survey units) containing Flat-tailed horned lizards observed within
the
30. OHV Emissions of PM10. The formulas used to derive anticipated OHV emissions are inapplicable to the ISDRA. As admitted by BLM, there are no air monitoring stations at or near the ISDRA, so the FEIS uses OHV emissions factors published by CARB. However, the coarse sand in the dunes, which is where much of the OHV activity takes place, does not fit the PM10 profile. Sand is larger and heavier and does not travel as far as other forms of dust. Also, Table 4.12-4 does not indicate the number of OHVs that were multiplied by the PM10 emissions factors. Finally, Table 4.12-4 is indecipherable. For example, there is no way to discern from the table what is meant by “Net Emissions.”
31. The EIS Does Not Provide an Adequate Cumulative Impacts Analysis. To comply with NEPA, BLM must evaluate more than just the impacts of the ISDRA RAMP; it also must assess the combined or "cumulative" effects of the proposed RAMP plus all other activities that affect OHV recreation in the CDCA. The FEIS fails to include such a cumulative impacts analysis. In the last two years BLM has closed a large number of OHV routes and recreation areas throughout the CDCA - not just in the ISDRA. Areas subject to BLM's recent closure edicts include the following:
· Two major trails in Painted Gorge;
·
A major trail in
· 25,600 acres in the East Glamis Camping Area;
·
271,528 acres of OHV
use area in the
· 81,500 acres of OHV use area in the Newberry-Rodman subregion of the WEMO;
·
98,043 acres of OHV
use area in the
· 8,500 acres of OHV use area in the Helendale subregion of the WEMO;
· 3,200 acres in the Edwards Bowl area of the WEMO;
·
222,750 acres of OHV
use area in the
· 133,129 acres of OHV use area in the Kramer subregion of the WEMO;
·
15 miles of OHV
routes in the
· 415,000 acres of OHV routes and washes throughout the NECO.
All of these actions were taken to comply with BLM's settlement agreement with CBD. Combined with the Imperial Sand Dunes action, these 11 closures constitute a comprehensive effort by BLM to remove the OHV community from huge areas of the CDCA areas which have historically been designated as "open" to OHV use. Through its piece-meal (but far-reaching) closure program, BLM has shut down more than 1 million acres of formerly open OHV areas without ever evaluating the cumulative recreation impacts of those closures.
In failing to include an adequate cumulative impacts analysis, the FEIS is deficient under NEPA. 40 CFR Part 1508.7, 1508.27(b)(7); see also, Hall v. Norton, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20320, (9`h' Cir. 2001). According to 40 CFR Part 1508.27(b)(7).
In short, the cumulative impacts of these various desert closures are significant and should be assessed in the FEIS. Cumulative impacts of the proposed RAMP and the other instituted or planned desert closures include: (1) loss of OHV recreation opportunities; (2) diminished public safety; (3) socio-economic declines; (4) conflicts with federal, state, regional, and local land use and recreation plans; and (5) loss of access to desert areas for disabled persons and persons unable to hike through desert terrain.
1.
The RAMP Fails to
Provide Adequate Camping and Staging Opportunities Between Highway 78 and
Interstate 8 Along the Canal. The
1987 Recreation Area Management Plan proposed the extension of the
BLM
should build as many camping pads along
This accomplishes many things simultaneously. First, more visitors would be accommodated in a more efficient manner. Second, the ten foot set back rule would be enforceable at all pads thus adding to public safety. Third, vendors would be within the law to make stops at the pads and would be able to do so safely. Fourth, with the decrease in speed along the road, public safety would be further enhanced. The RAMP is deficient for not considering this option.
2. No Justification For Restricting Motorized Access In Proposed Adaptive Management Area. According to the FEIS, there is insufficient scientific data to support the temporary interim closures. (FEIS, at 78.) Likewise, there is no evidence that an Adaptive Management Area (“AMA”), where OHV use will be highly restricted, is necessary to protect any sensitive species. As BLM well knows, this area receives very little OHV traffic.
The
FEIS, at Pg 78 states also states that the interim closures (which correspond to
the AMA) “were not developed using sound science and information we now have
available. According to BLM:
“weWe now know that these closures are not required for adequate
protection of sensitive species. A settlement agreement was developed in
November 2000 with plaintiffs (Center for Biological Diversity and others) to
establish interim actions to protect endangered and threatened species pending
completion of USFWS consultation on the CDCA Plan in total. Prior to
3. ROS System Unreasonably Diminishes Recreational Access. The Protesting Parties adamantly oppose the implementation of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (“ROS”) at the ISDRA. There is no scientific data to support the use of ROS as a method to limit motorized activity or to protect any natural or cultural resources in the ISDRA. In fact, almost every study undertaken by the BLM indicates the opposite.
The final RAMP must provide for future recreational growth. There are adequate sand dunes within the ISDRA to provide the recreation opportunity seek and desire. The application of the ROS concept must not limit recreation opportunities but rather should provide a management tool to identify and fill the need for additional camping and staging requirements.
4.
Biological Resource
Goals and Objectives. According
to page 46 of the RAMP, BLM will engage in the "...monitoring of highly
visible indicator species such as the
5. Inadequate Signage. The RAMP occasionally refers to "Posted speed limits." However, there are virtually no signs posted anywhere in the ISDRA to inform the visitors of rules of any kind. That being said, "speed zones" in and near major camping areas at the ISDRA. This would enhance the ability of the rangers to enforce the speed rules, minimize the 50-foot rule disputes, and reduce dust levels.
Further,
signage relating to safety practices and area policies is commonplace in most
water-recreation areas and city, state, and national parks. Boaters are made
aware of limited access areas and permissible speeds in all areas. In addition,
the Coral Pink Dunes in
6. Inadequate Law Enforcement of “Sand Drags”. The RAMP fails to address unsafe operation of the impromptu sand drags at the ISDRA The primary public safety problem arises when BLM allows more than two vehicles to proceed through the drags or allows "flying starts," both of which increase the risk of a serious accident involving the crowd of spectators. The lack of physical barriers to protect the onlookers is equally hazardous. There is already a 15 mph speed limit within 50 feet of any assembly of people. This law could be used to keep the spectators a safe distance away from the drags. It may be the case that 100 feet is more appropriate in this instance.
7. Reservation System Will Create Further Problems at ISDRA. There should be no reservation system at the ISDRA. Using reservation systems to limit the number of visitors (page 56 of the RAMP) is unjustified. The camping and staging space available at the ISDRA should be used to accommodate as many people as possible. The BLM should encourage the development of camping facilities that can be reserved on private land surrounding the ISDRA. This would be the best way to have sites that can be reserved. They may even be developed with water, electricity, and RV dumps. They would be self- supporting and would not spread the cost to those that do not utilize them.
Our objections to the reservation system include:
a) Possibility for non-OHV groups to book 100% of sites or permits
b) First come first served has history of working
c) There is no justification for program
d) Added task for Rangers and administration
e) Bidding for sites is discriminatory
f) Unnatural and unrealistic campsite size
g) Potential for scalping
h) There is no added benefit to users over present system
i) The only purpose appears to limit visitorship at the ISDRA.
8.
Recreation
The ROS classifications proposed in the RAMP do not directly apply to the recreational experiences associated with the ISDRA. The ROS classifications must be refined to satisfy the unique recreational activities associated with ISDRA camping, OHV staging and use.
Any plan to implement ROS should include at least the following:
· Monitoring and Data Acquisition Procedure
· Management Area Precise Boundary Definition
· Precise Determination of Campground and OHV Staging Area Acreage
· Explicit Trigger Definitions
· Expansion Plans for Camping And OHV Staging Areas
· Well defined prescriptions for Stakeholder participation
· Specific provisions for implementation accountability.
The
protesting parties have analyzed the guidelines used for "Land and Resource
Planning" in the
The LAC planning system involves a nine-step process.
“In this nine step process, value judgments [are] made in determining recreation carrying capacity within a larger and more rational resource decision-making process ... The LAC procedure provides an integrative framework that applies the principles, concepts and findings of the more traditional carrying capacity research. "
The nine steps are:
1. Identify Area Issues and Concerns
2.
Define and Describe
3. Select Indicators of Resource and Social Conditions
4. Inventory Existing Resource and Social Conditions
5.
Specify Standards for Resource and Social Indicators for each
6.
Identify Alternative
7.
Identify Management Actions for Each Key Issue and
8. Evaluate and Select a Preferred Alternative
9. Implement Actions and Monitor Condition
Note
that ROS was written in 1979 by
The Protesting Parties further propose that the "Management Actions AW #1" described on page 55 and 56 of the RAMP relating to ROS "Triggers" be expanded to maximize recreation development and opportunities before restrictions are imposed on camping or OHV staging activities.
9. The RAMP is Deficient As It Does Not Include a ROS Inventory For Existing Conditions (or the No Action Alternative). Page 18, section 20.1, of the ROS User's Guide states that the “supply component of recreation input to Land and Resource Management Planning requires an inventory of recreation supply opportunities by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class that are currently available as a result of existing conditions. It also requires that for each alternative management prescription a separate projection of potential supply by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class be developed. This information provides the basis for evaluation and determination of the management direction response to projected recreation demands. " (emphasis added)
According to the guide, ROS cannot be implemented until this inventory is complete. The above inventory should be done based upon the 1987 baseline that does not include the interim closures. Without a correct and accurate inventory, ROS designations cannot be assigned. Additionally, the ROS designations utilized by the BLM are not designed for, nor do they take into account, the unique recreational opportunities and visitor experiences that exist at the ISDRA. It is improper for the BLM to arbitrarily assign ROS designations without data.
The ROS designations set forth in the RAMP are from the ROS User's Guide and appear to be cut and pasted from their website. While it may be true they have been successfully used since 1979 in the forest setting, it is readily apparent they do not suit activities at the ISDRA.
As stated on the Forest Service website: "The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) is an organizing framework for setting recreation management objectives. It was developed by the U.S. Forest Service and is widely used in North America. The ROS system is based on the idea that recreationists can realize desired experiences by participating in recreation activities in chosen settings. These opportunities for activities, settings and experiences range from primitive to urban. The recreation inventory includes information on existing conditions by ROS class.” The bold emphasis is added by the ASA. As written in the FEIS, ROS classes are proposed based on desired conditions and not the existing conditions as directed in the Official ROS User's Guide.
The ROS User's Guide also provides that: "ROS specifications are to be only as a basic framework for inventorying, planning and managing the recreation resource in accordance with the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA)." This directs planners to use the ROS as a basic guide that is flexible.
Page 8 of the ROS User's Guide, Section 12 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY states:
"The word opportunity is defined as a "combination of circumstances favorable for a purpose. " The purpose or goal of the recreationist, as discussed above, is to realize satisfying experiences. This is done by participating in preferred activities in preferred environmental settings. Thus, a recreation opportunity is "the availability of a real choice for a user to participate in a preferred activity within a preferred setting, in order to realize those satisfying experiences which are desired. "
The key point above is "for a user to participate in a preferred activity within a preferred setting, in order to realize those satisfying experiences which are desired. " Dune enthusiasts at the ISDRA are already doing so. Therefore, ROS concepts need not be applied to the ISDRA unless the intent is to provide a greater number of satisfying experiences while providing for conservation. This can be applied to the need for more camping and staging areas.
If the BLM elects to impose the ROS on the ISDRA, BLM should adhere to the following guidance from the ROS User’s Guide.
"While the goal of the recreations is to obtain satisfying experiences, the goal of the recreation resource manager becomes one of providing the opportunities for obtaining these experiences. By managing the natural resource settings, and the activities which occur within it, the manager is providing the opportunities for recreation experiences to take place. Therefore, for both the manager and the recreationist, recreation opportunities can be expressed in terms of three principal components: the activities, the setting, and the experience."
As currently proposed, the RAMP’s ROS designations do not accomplish this directive as set forth in the ROS User's Guide. The number of campsites per acre assigned to the various classes are well below levels currently occurring at the ISDRA.
Initially, the ROS was designed as a tool in planning for continued enjoyment of recreational opportunities. Here, however, the ROS "triggers" are being utilized to limit or reduce recreational opportunities. This is not supported by the principles set forth in the ROS Users Guide and such negative utilization of the trigger system does not achieve the management goal of maintaining the ISDRA as a World Class OHV experience.
The Guide further states: "For management and conceptual convenience possible mixes or combinations of activities, settings, and probable experience opportunities have been arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. This continuum is called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and is divided into six classes ... The six classes, or portions along the continuum, and the accompanying class names have been selected and conventionalized because of their descriptiveness and utility in Land and Resource Management Planning and other management applications.
“Each class is defined in terms of its combination of activity, setting, and experience opportunities ... Subclasses may be established to reflect local or regional conditions as long as aggregations can be made back to the six major classes for regional or national summaries. An example of a subclass may be a further breakdown of Roaded Natural into subclasses based on paved, oiled, or dirt surfaced roads, which in turns reflects amount of use, or a further breakdown of Primitive based upon aircraft or boat use.”
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation opportunities the public might desire, and identifies that portion of the spectrum a given National Forest might be able to provide. " Again, bold emphasis is added by the ASA.
The experiences at the ISDRA are, by nature, limited to the following types.
1) Wilderness hiking and Camping
2) Open dune riding areas that typically receive high usage
3) Open dune riding areas that typically receive low usage
4) Primitive camping
5) Lightly developed camping
6) Moderately developed camping
Given the fact that the ROS was written as a management tool for forests, redefining the ROS designations for the ISDRA seems appropriate. This can be accomplished by establishing sub classes as mentioned above.
10. Adaptive Management Area Not Needed. Scientific data does not indicate the need for an Adaptive Management Area. As indicated in the EIS, "Most of the central dunes Class L area is lightly used. " Pg 3-61 This is an understatement. The fact is, this area does not require a permit regime. Instead it should be monitored for numbers and patterns of usage and resource conditions.
The microphyll woodlands to the East of the dunes do not attract dune enthusiasts for a variety of reasons. For example, tire puncture is a big concern in this area. OHV use is almost virtually exclusively limited to the wider washes present in the area. Trees are carefully avoided as moving past them and receiving a blow from even the smallest branch at any speed amounts to being hit with a whip.
Generally, OHVs travel through these dunes to explore the area on a single occasion and then return to the larger dunes after a brief period. As a rule, the woodlands are avoided as they are not suited to OHV recreation. Some travel through the area can be credited to mechanical failure and thus the need to get to the Wash Road by the most direct route possible for safety reasons. A limited number of visitors camp south of Wash 50 and will use the widest washes to access to the dunes at their first opportunity. Some dune enthusiasts will become lost and to regain their bearings, will head for the wash road as a safety measure. Again, the woodlands are generally avoided by most OHV users.
11. Misclassification of Management Areas. The RAMP classifies both the Glamis and Dune Buggy Flats management areas as “Roaded Natural.” These are inappropriate classifications. Glamis and Dune Buggy Flats are well-developed staging areas. Under the RAMP they will receive pit toilets and vending areas. The roads leading into and through Glamis and Dune Buggy Flats will be graded. Therefore, both areas should be reclassified as “Rural.”
III. Parts of ISDRA RAMP and EIS Subject to this Protest
This protest challenges each aspect of the Proposed ISDRA RAMP that eliminates, reduces, or restricts OHV recreation as allowed under the current CDCA Plan. This includes, but is not limited to, use restrictions in the proposed Adaptive Management Area.
This protest also challenges the entire EIS for the proposed RAMP on grounds that it is systematically flawed and fails to meet the minimum analytical and technical requirements of NEPA.
IV. Concise Statement Describing Director’s Error in Approving the ISDRA RAMP and EIS
As articulated in Section II of this Protest, in approving the proposed RAMP and EIS for the ISDRA, the Director failed to properly discharge his duties under NEPA and FLMPA. Specifically, the Director approved the ISDRA RAMP and EIS even though both documents suffer from at least five major flaws.
First, neither document adequately discloses or analyzes the true status of the PMV. As a result, BLM has misled the public as to the need for the allegedly “protective” restrictions imposed by the RAMP. Although BLM’s own monitoring data, as well as plant surveys conducted by non-government botanists, demonstrate that the PMV is doing very well in the open riding areas of the dunes, these key facts are not discussed in the RAMP or EIS. Instead, both documents seek to perpetuate the myth that the plant (a) is on the verge of extinction, and (b) is threatened primarily by OHV use. Neither of these is true.
Second, the EIS (and to a lesser extent the RAMP) overstates the severity of OHV impacts on other natural and cultural resources in the ISDRA. In fact, the EIS is nearly devoid of technical evidence showing that OHVs have an adverse effect on any sensitive plant or animals species, including the Mojave desert tortoise, the Flat-tailed horned lizard, the Fringe-toed lizard, the Spade-foot toad, sand food, desert sunflower, or the dune beetle. Again, unsubstantiated assertions regarding OHV impacts on natural and cultural resources misleads the public into believing (incorrectly) that OHV recreation in the ISDRA must be controlled more rigorously. In this respect, the EIS fails in its primary task, which is to accurately inform the public of existing conditions and the manner in which these conditions will be affected by the proposed action.
Third, neither the RAMP nor the EIS provide adequate evidence demonstrating a need for the Adaptive Management Area (“AMA”) and the visitor controls that apply there. The monitoring data developed by BLM and others (TOA and Arthur Phillips) over the last five years establish that PMV colonies in the AMA are thriving, even in the absence of strict controls on OHV use. The proposed “caps” on daily OHV use in the AMA will provide little or no added benefit to the PMV, as the plant is already doing well in this of the dunes and is rarely disturbed by OHVs. Therefore, the vehicle cap only serves to prevent families and other members of the public from visiting this large, beautiful area of the ISDRA. This is not sound land management.
Fourth, the RAMP imposes an ROS system that is inapplicable to the ISDRA. It will surely fail unless it is modified substantially to meet the unique circumstances that characterize public recreation in the dunes. The assumptions used to develop the ROS formulas are incorrect and grossly misrepresent existing conditions in the ISDRA. Visitor numbers are inaccurate and derived through suspect methodology. The size and number of “existing” and “proposed” campsites is likewise inconsistent with reality. Worst of all, BLM has elected to implement this flawed ROS system without following the directives set forth in the ROS guidance documents prepared by the U.S. Forests Service – the entity which developed the ROS concept. Ultimately, the ROS system, as currently proposed for implementation, will reduce public access to, and public enjoyment of, the ISDRA. While providing little or no added protection for natural or cultural resources.
Finally, the EIS fails to adequately assess and mitigate impacts on public recreation. Comments submitted by OHV user groups, including the protesting parties, indicate that many of controls imposed by the RAMP will significantly diminish recreational opportunities in the ISDRA. Yet neither the RAMP nor the EIS proposes adequate mitigation measures to offset this impact. Nor for that matter does either document consider alternatives that would reduce this impact while still achieving BLM’s management goals.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Protest should be granted, and the Director’s decision to approve the ISDRA RAMP and EIS should be remanded for modification consistent with the comments set forth in this letter.
Very truly yours,
David P. Hubbard
DPH:ljd
cc:
Mark Harms, ASA
Bureau of Land Management,
El Centro Field
Office