JUNE, 2002 CA DESERT ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING REPORT

By
Roy Denner, Recreation Representative

The California Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) is aboard of 15
individuals who have interests in the California desert. This
Council, appointed by the U.S.Secretary of the Interior, established
under Federal law, is supposed to advise the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) on the management of the 10 million acreCalifornia
desert district.

At a DAC meeting held in El Centro during December, 2001 several
significant recommendations were made by the DAC, to the BLM, on a
vote of 10 in favor to 2 opposed. Those recommendations were as
follows:

In the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan, the
Northern &Eastern Colorado Management Plan (NECO), and the Northern
Mojave Management Plan (NEMO), the BLM should include a provision to
mitigate impacts on land users just like it mitigates impacts on the
environment. For example, if an area needs to be closed to public
use because of significant impacts on an endangered species, another
area should be opened or expanded to compensate for the closure.
Because of the lack of recent scientific studies of the status of the
Desert Tortoise - the species that is driving the decisions included
in the new plans - implementation of the NECO & NEMO plans should be
delayed until new studies can be completed. BLM biologist reporting
at the meeting admitted that no good scientific date exists to
support BLM planning actions, which consist solely of closures of
public lands to public use.
Similarly,cattle grazing restrictions should not be implemented until
further studies of the Desert Tortoise are complete.
OHV areas recommended for closure in the NECO Plan, with no evidence
of OHV impact on species, should remain open.
A recent DAC meeting was held in Barstow on June 28th & 29th, 2002.
At that meeting, it was reported that none of the DAC
recommendations will be implemented. No sound scientific evidence or
rational analysis was provided to support these decisions.

When the person responsible for drafting the NECO Plan was confronted
with "You must have overwhelming evidence of OHV impacts in the OHV
areas you are closing to ignore the DAC's recommendation with a vote
of 10 to 2- Is that true?" The answer was "no". The BLM has done no
environmental studies in those area.

It was reported by the BLM that the new Coachella Valley Plan,
currently being developed, treats 31 species, THAT ARE NOT ON ANY
ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST, as if they were already listed since "they
might someday be threatened or endangered." In the entire 1.2 million
acre Coachella Valley (the Palm Springs corridor along Fwy. 10) there
is not a single place that a kid can ride his/her dirt bike legally
after school. All OHV areas have been closed!

(6,2002 DAC report,pg. 2)

The current effort to designate driveable trails in several planning
areas was discussed. Instead of providing valid evidence that
certain trails must be closed due to evidence of environmental
impacts on those trails, the BLM is taking the approach of closing
all dirt roads and trails to vehicle use unless the users have
identified them as trails that need to remain open - and they are
closing some of those if alternate routes are available! Many members
of the DAC expressed concern about the proliferating trail closures
since access for all public land users is being denied. Included
among the dissenters were representatives from the cattle industry,
the mining industry, the filming industry, County Boards of
Supervisors, the OHV communities, and even the wildlife protection
community.

The question of money was raised. None of the plans address the cost
to implement their recommendations. The Desert District Manager
indicated that she has used up this year's budget already and there
are several more months to go in this fiscal year. To implement all
of the new management plans and monitor the result would take several
times the staff currently available - and no increased budget is
anticipated - if anything, BLM appropriated funds are being cutback.
So the end result of attempting to implement these unrealistic plans
will be that implementation schedules will not be met and the
environmentalist groups will sue the BLM once again for failing to
implement plans.

Does any of this matter to the California Desert District BLM? The
answer is a resounding "NO!" Not one single element of any of the
new Desert Management Plans addresses even maintaining status quo for
public land users. Certainly, there is no mention of expanding
public use opportunities. Instead, a single solution policy is being
applied across the board that can only be described as "Management by
Closure!"

The unfortunate result of this management by closure philosophy, that
ignores input from a majority of desert interest groups, is that more
and more litigation will follow. These interest groups are banding
together, with California businesses that are being impacted by
continuous management by closure, to halt this unfair and illegal
process. Litigation by enviro-extremist groups has been so effective
in directing BLM policies that other interests are left with no
alternative.

A "last hope" proposal was offered to the BLM at the meeting to avoid
expanding litigation costs. It was proposed by recreation
representative Denner that, if the BLM can get the environmental
groups that sued the desert district to put up some money, the other
interest groups will match that amount. The money would be used to
perform a serious scientific study of the California Desert Tortoise.
Law suits would stop, the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan would be
updated, and plans would incorporate the results of the study. If the
environmental groups are serious about saving the tortoise, they
should jump at this offer. We'll see!