Topic: Message #741043

[BigMike]

and

Here is the person to respond to
edreyfus@ca.blm.gov
John Stewart has a letter that you may use all or part of when replying to the BLM



RE: Devil’s Canyon EA Comments


I am submitting the below comments on behalf of ***(myself, club, or association)***.


An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for proposed vehicular access for special recreational events in Devil’s Canyon to provide recreation opportunities and fulfill the multiple use mission of the BLM.


As noted, the description does not accurately reflect the intent of the desire for recreation access to Devil’s Canyon. Specifically, the term “event” alludes to access being for spectator viewing and accompanied by an entry fee. This is not the case. Access to the Devil’s Canyon area is desired due to it being a route that provides a suitable technical challenge. Such an opportunity does not exist within the BLM El Centro managed public lands. Again, access would not be for “event” or “entertainment” purposes. Access would be for recreation activity provided by the technical challenge of the proposed route. Participants would be engaging in a similar recreation activity that would not be considered a “special event” in any other areas open for motorized recreation access under the current land management plan.


As noted within the EA, there is an existing need for “routes that provide a suitable challenge”. There are no other opportunities comparable within three or more hour drive of the greater San Diego metropolitan area. As a technical challenge, this route would be considered “most difficult”, this route is a rare recreational resource.


The EA describes the vehicles to be used as “specialized rock-crawling vehicles”. This is inaccurate as the vehicles to be used would be multi-function, street legal vehicles. While they may be “modified”, they certainly are not “specialized”. The vehicles would be licensed to be operated on any public road and comply with state and federal vehicle safety, smog, and insurance requirements and driven by licensed drivers.


For further clarification, the OHV (off-highway vehicle) is used throughout the EA. Within the context of California Motor Vehicle Code, the term OHV is assigned to any motorized vehicle that is capable of being off of a paved or graded surface. Within this frame of reference, the term applies to a wide variety of vehicles; some not permitted for use on public roads. In addition, Federal Code of Regulations provides similar distinctive definitions for OHV.


The Devil’s Canyon route is within 500 feet of a major Interstate highway with an estimated 5.6 million vehicles per year traffic count as documented by the California Department of Transportation. (Interstate 8 California Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) - 2007 http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all/r007-10i.htm).


As proposed, recreation activity would be limited to perhaps 200 vehicles per year. The comparative effect recreation activity would have in terms of noise and dust pollution is negligible. Furthermore, the EA states: “It is unlikely allowing legal or permitted OHV use will increase the damage from the current level”. The proposed route is a former commercial route the pre-dates the alignment of the current Interstate 8 highway. Due to the sandy and rocky nature of this route, the risk of resource damage is minimal. Therefore, noise pollution, air pollution, and damage to vegetation should not be considered as factors mitigated by restricting access.


As noted within the Cultural Resources section of the EA: “Devils Canyon was utilized as an historic route of travel from 1865 until the construction of Highway 80 in 1913. The canyon was the original route of the Mountain Springs cutoff from the Southern Emigrant Trail in the Yuha Desert over the mountains west to Jacumba and San Diego.”


Additionally, the proposed action notes there are no cultural resources other than the historic route of travel and no historic properties shall be affected.


Opening Devil’s Canyon with no restrictions is listed as under “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis”.


This alternative would allow vehicular travel on the route through Devils Canyon year round and would not require a permit. The trail would be designated open to motorized vehicles under the WECO route of travel designation.


The discussion is not accurate since the route would be subject to the restrictions imposed by travel management under the current land management plan.


The discussion notes this option was not considered as it would be necessary to amend the plan if this alternative is adopted. In reality, engaging in site specific planning to provide for “special recreation permit” access is “amending” the land management plan by allowing an exception to the plan under stipulations.


As stated, “Unrestricted OHV use within this canyon could cause disturbance to PBHS. A current settlement agreement prevents BLM from authorizing any activities that are likely to affect PBHS within their Critical Habitat.”


The following quote is from the discussion of the Proposed Action on Threatened and Endangered Species: “The noise and activity of the vehicles passing through the area may result in wildlife temporarily moving away from the proposed route. The duration of the disturbance will typically be less than a full day, but may extend for a full weekend in some instances. PBS have demonstrated tolerance to limited OHV use in other areas. In areas where occasional OHV use occurs, PBS would avoid the vehicles but continue to use the area once the vehicles have left. The area would remain available as habitat for foraging and resting.”


The discussion further states that “It would be reasonable to assume PBS in the area will move away from vehicles encountered on the Devil’s Canyon route. Escape routes for PBS are abundant along the route and would not require a significant expenditure of energy.”


And, the conclusion notes that the route “does not traverse through any lambing grounds.” It is noted that impact of OHV on PBS is not well understood and they have habituated to vehicles in some areas.


The proposed action is an attempt to provide for a public requested recreation opportunity in an area that has minimal to no impact of resources.


The proposed action has some stipulations that make it impossible for the average recreationist to comply. The issue of PBS lambing season is noted and is line with similar access restrictions imposed by adjacent land management agencies.


A permit process would be acceptable provided is was intended to ensure that access to the route was on specific days of the week. However, the proposed action limits the permits to 7 per year outside the PBS lambing season and inclusive of unstated stipulations and to number of participants and/or vehicles.


The proposed permitted access time encompasses winter months that include several holiday periods. I would recommend that the number of allowed permits be increased on the holiday periods within a framework that allowed for at least two weekend permits per month with an additional four permits to cover holiday weekends.


The proposed action provides a stipulation for insurance/bonding. This requirement is excessive in that vehicles to be used are licensed, street-legal and comply with state motor vehicle laws which include maintaining required insurance coverage. And, activities to be done are similar to activities permitted in other areas open to motorized access and not requiring a special insurance/bonding. It is, after-all, small groups of families and friends engaging in recreation activity.


The proposed action provides a stipulation for provisions for emergency response. This item seems onerous as there are no other areas where participants in a recreation activity are required to provide for emergency response. In deed, does the BLM require an organized hiker in a desert areas to obtain a permit that stipulates they provide insurance/bonding and provisions for emergency response?


In conclusion, the proposed action is onerous in the requirements to obtain a “special recreation permit” when the perspective individuals are small groups of friends and family.


A more appropriate alternative would be to revisit the “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis” and provide for opening the Devil’s Canyon route outside the defined PBS lambing season on specific weekends with a reasonable vehicle number limitation per available access day.

Marlin Crawler plans to send out letters tomorrow to help our friends down in San Diego, so spread the word and help out fellow wheels keep their favorite trail open!

Thanks
BigMike